Height of buildings must be measured excluding basements as per KMB Rules 1999.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 to P8 orders.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of approximately 10 cents of land in Lalam Village, wherein there is a residential building. The 4^th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of 5.70 ares of land in Lalam Village, which lies on the south of the property owned by the petitioner and his family members. Earlier, Ext P2 application submitted by the 4^th respondent for a building permit was rejected by Ext.P3 order. Later, the 4^th respondent started piling work, and on enquiry, the petitioner came to understand that the Municipality had permitted the 4^th respondent to construct a commercial building. An enquiry was made as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act , 2005, wherein Ext.P5 was issued stating that the defects in the earlier applications were cured by the respondent, and a fresh plan was submitted, and based on the same, building permit was issued as per Ext.P6. Petitioner submitted that the building constructed by the 4^th respondent is a high rise building as defined under Rule 110 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “KMB Rules 1999). Aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P6 building permit, the petitioner approached this Court, filing WP(C) No.31535 of 2017, which was disposed of as per judgment dated 11.10.2019, directing the Municipality to consider the complaint raised by the petitioner. Thereafter Ext.P7 order was issued rejecting the complaint raised by the petitioner. Consequently, Ext.P8 occupancy certificate was also issued. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that the building proposed to be constructed as per Ext.P2 is a high rise building as defined under Rule 110 of the KMB Rules 1999, and the Rule that stood at the time of consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner reads as follows:-

“110:- For the purpose of this chapter, “high rise building”

means a building having a height of 16 meters or more.”

Petitioner would submit that this is the definition of high rise building as on 05.03.2013 after Rule 110 was amended vide SRO No.80/2013. The definition of high rise building prior to the amendment stood as follows:-

“110:- High rise building – for the purpose of this chapter high rise building means a building having more than four floors and or 15 meters of height For the purpose of this rule the word “height” shall be height of the building as defined in clause (aq)

of sub rule (1) of rule 2.”

Going by the unamended Rule, it is provided that for the purpose of Rule 110 , the word “height” shall be the height of the building as defined in clause (aq) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, having deleted the said proviso from the statute book from 05.02.2013 onwards, the height of the building shall be considered dehors the said proviso, and the definition of a building as defined in Section 2(1)(l) should be taken as the criteria. Based on the same, the petitioner would contend that the rejection of the application as per Ext.P7, relying on Rule 2 (aq) and holding that the height of the building is only 15.7 metres, is illegal and unjust. After the amendment on 05.02.2013, the height of the building has to be taken as the actual height of the building, and if it is taken into consideration, the height of the building will be more than 16 metres.

4. A detailed statement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, wherein paragraphs 5 to 9 read as follow