CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Amendments to KPBR 2019 Ensure Compliance in Church Construction: Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenges

22 February 2025 1:12 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: High Court emphasizes validity of permissions granted under revised building rules, dismissing multiple petitions against new church construction.

The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice T.R. Ravi, has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the permissions granted for the construction of a new church in Thrissur. The petitioners questioned the validity and adherence to statutory requirements under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules (KPBR) 2011 and 2019, specifically the necessity of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Collector. The court upheld the permissions, referencing recent amendments to the KPBR which removed the need for such NOCs.

The case revolved around permissions granted for constructing a new church by the Government of Kerala and local self-government bodies. Petitioners, including property owners adjacent to the proposed church site, argued that these permissions violated the KPBR 2011 and were granted without the required NOC from the District Collector. They also contended that subsequent amendments to KPBR 2019, which removed the NOC requirement, should not retroactively validate previously non-compliant permissions.

Application of Amendments – Retroactive Application:
The court focused on the retroactive application of amendments to KPBR 2019, which replaced KPBR 2011 and came into force on November 8, 2019. The amendments abolished the necessity for an NOC from the District Collector for religious building constructions, delegating the responsibility to the Panchayat. Justice T.R. Ravi noted that these changes were intended to streamline the permission process and minimize bureaucratic delays.

Judicial Discretion under Article 226:
The court deliberated the appropriateness of exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, given the statutory amendments. It concluded that there was no need for judicial interference, as the amendments addressed procedural lapses and ensured compliance with current legal requirements.

Credibility of Initial Permissions and Subsequent Amendments:
The court recognized that while initial permissions granted under KPBR 2011 may have lacked adherence to statutory requirements, the amendments in KPBR 2019 rectified these deficiencies. Justice T.R. Ravi emphasized, “The amendments to KPBR 2019 apply to pending permissions, making the new church construction compliant with current legal requirements.”

Justice T.R. Ravi stated, “The discretion under Article 226 shall not be exercised in cases where no purpose will be served by interfering with the impugned orders. The amendments to KPBR 2019 were aimed at reducing bureaucratic delays and ensuring that construction permissions are granted in a timely manner, in accordance with streamlined legal processes.”

The Kerala High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to uphold legal amendments aimed at simplifying administrative procedures. By affirming the permissions granted for the church’s construction under KPBR 2019, the judgment underscores the importance of current legal frameworks in ensuring compliance and streamlining bureaucratic processes. This decision is expected to influence future cases regarding the construction of religious buildings, promoting a more efficient and transparent permission system.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2024
 

Latest Legal News