The Kerala High Court has clarified that local panchayats cannot issue notices of violation under building rules while ignoring explicit government circulars that provide exemptions. This judgment reinforces the principle that subordinate authorities must comply with higher policy directives, particularly when they affect property rights and regularization of construction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sobhana M.K. and Rajeswari A.K., residents of Unnikulam, Kozhikode, sought regularization of a reconstructed residential property on land previously classified as paddy land. The 2nd respondent, the Secretary of Unnikulam Grama Panchayat, issued three notices - Exhibits P4, P8, and P9 - alleging violations of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, and invoking the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008. The petitioners contended that the land had been legally converted prior to the cutoff date of 30.12.2017, rendering the paddy land Act inapplicable.
Key Facts
- The petitioners obtained a possession certificate from the Village Office, Sivapuram on 25.06.2021 (Exhibit P1)
- A building permit (No. A2-664/14-15) was granted on 25.07.2015 (Exhibit P2)
- The completion plan for reconstruction was submitted on 03.05.2023 (Exhibit P3)
- Exhibit P10 is a consent dated 16.07.2015 from Chelathoor Abdul Majeed, confirming land ownership and conversion
- Exhibit P13 is Circular No. 406/R.A.1/2018 dated 13.08.2018, which explicitly states that properties on land converted before 30.12.2017 are exempt from the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008
- The petitioners submitted replies to Exhibits P4 and P8 (Exhibits P5 and P6)
- Exhibits P11 and P12 are photographs of the soak pit and building structure, submitted as evidence of compliance
Procedural History
- 25.06.2021: Possession certificate issued by Village Office
- 25.07.2015: Building permit granted with approved plan
- 16.07.2015: Consent for land conversion obtained (Exhibit P10)
- 03.05.2023: Completion plan submitted to Panchayat (Exhibit P3)
- 17.07.2023: First notice issued (Exhibit P4)
- 17.08.2023: Petitioners replied to Exhibit P4 (Exhibit P5)
- 11.12.2024: Second notice issued (Exhibit P8), citing Paddy Land Act
- 06.12.2024: Petitioners approached Chief Minister’s Taluk Level Adalat (Exhibits P6, P7)
- 01.11.2025: Third notice issued (Exhibit P9), reiterating alleged violations
- 15.06.2026: Writ petition filed and heard by the High Court
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners argued that the notices were legally unsustainable because:
- The land conversion was completed before 30.12.2017, as confirmed by Exhibit P10 and Circular P13
- The Panchayat failed to consider the exempting circular (P13) despite its explicit applicability
- The notices were issued without proper inspection or opportunity to explain
The respondents did not appear or file any counter-affidavit.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of Exhibits P4, P8, and P9
- Direction to accept Exhibit P3 and issue an occupancy certificate
- Declaration that Rule 97A and Rule 64 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, apply to their case
- Declaration that reliance on the Paddy Land Act was illegal
- Dispensation of translation requirements for English documents
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a panchayat may issue notices of violation under building rules while disregarding a government circular that explicitly exempts the property from the applicability of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008, where conversion was completed prior to the stipulated cutoff date.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Exhibit P13, Circular No. 406/R.A.1/2018 dated 13.08.2018, which clearly states that properties on land converted before 30.12.2017 are not subject to the restrictions of the Paddy Land Act. They argued that the notices issued under the Panchayat Building Rules were predicated on an illegal assumption of jurisdiction. They further contended that Rule 97A (relating to reconstruction) and Rule 64 (relating to compliance with approved plans) were applicable, and that the Panchayat’s failure to consider their submissions and documentary evidence violated principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent
No arguments were presented by the respondents, as they did not appear before the Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the notices under Exhibits P8 and P9 were issued solely on the basis of alleged violations under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Conservation Act, 2008. However, the petitioners had produced Exhibit P10, confirming land conversion prior to 30.12.2017, and Exhibit P13, the binding circular issued by the Department of Revenue, which explicitly exempts such properties from the Act’s restrictions.
"The circular dated 13.08.2018 is a clear, authoritative directive issued by the competent authority, and the Panchayat, as a subordinate body, is bound to follow it. Ignoring it renders the notices legally unsustainable."
The Court noted that the Panchayat had not conducted any independent verification of the land status, nor had it considered the petitioners’ submissions or photographs (Exhibits P11, P12) demonstrating compliance with building norms. The failure to apply the circular constituted a clear error of law and a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem.
The Court further held that the petitioners’ completion plan (Exhibit P3) was duly submitted and that the Panchayat had no valid grounds to reject it without a proper inspection or opportunity to rectify. The Court declined to issue a mandamus directing immediate issuance of the occupancy certificate, as that required a fresh assessment by the Panchayat in light of the exempting circular.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed in part. The Court set aside Exhibits P8 and P9 issued on 11.12.2024 and 01.11.2025. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ application in light of Exhibits P10 to P13, including the exempting circular dated 13.08.2018. The reconsideration must be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners’ prayer for an occupancy certificate and declaration under Rule 97A and Rule 64 is left open for determination upon such reconsideration.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Circulars Bind Subordinate Authorities
- Practitioners must cite binding government circulars when challenging notices based on statutory provisions that are explicitly exempted
- Panchayats and municipal bodies cannot override or ignore departmental circulars issued under the same statutory framework
- Failure to consider such circulars renders administrative orders void ab initio
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Notices issued without considering submitted documents or providing a hearing are vulnerable to quashing
- Photographs, consent letters, and official records submitted by applicants must be formally evaluated, not dismissed summarily
- The burden shifts to the authority to prove non-compliance when the applicant has produced prima facie evidence of exemption
Reconstruction Projects Are Protected Under Rule 97A
- Rule 97A of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, permits reconstruction on existing plots without requiring fresh land conversion
- Petitioners in similar cases should proactively submit completion plans under Rule 97A and reference exempting circulars to preempt notices
- Delay in processing applications cannot justify issuance of punitive notices
