Kerala High Court
Vinodkumar. S vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on 30 March, 2026
1
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 959 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
VINODKUMAR. S
AGED 46 YEARS
TC 44/2414 ARCHANA BHAVAN KANNETTUMUKKU THYCAUD P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SHRI.ASIF N
RESPONDENTS:
1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
2 THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
3 THE STATION COMMANDER, STATION HEADQUARTERS, GX4G+5X5,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - NEYYAR DAM RD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
PANGODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006.
4 STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
SMT.M.S.KIRAN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
SMT. SYLAJA S.L., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2026, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be in ownership and enjoyment
of 1.72 Ares of landed property situated in Re.Sy.Nos.3/1 and
4/1 of Sasthamangalam Village. He submitted Ext.P2
application dated 28.12.2021, for obtaining a building permit
from the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. In reply, the
Corporation issued Ext.P3, dated 13.05.2022, informing that
though the proposed construction is within a distance of 70
metres from the “Pangodu Military Station”, on the basis of a
letter from the Station Commander of Pangodu military station,
no construction within a radius 100 metres would be permitted,
unless and until an NOC from the military establishment is
obtained. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition,
seeking to challenge Ext.P3 issued as above by the respondent
Corporation, as well as the circular at Ext.P4 issued by the
Government dated 12.02.2022.
3
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
2. I have heard Sri. M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, Sri.M.S.Kiran,
the learned senior panel counsel for the 3 rd respondent herein,
and Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.
3. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ
petition is as to whether the interdiction pursuant to Ext.P3
could be sustained or not.
4. Sri.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
would make extensive reference to the provisions of the Works
of Defence Act, 1903 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) – the
provisions under Sections 3, 8 and 9 – to contend that unless
and until a separate declaration as prescribed under Section 3
followed with a notification under the provisions of Section 9 has
been issued, no interdiction in the nature of the one sought to
be imposed herein could be enforced as regards a building
proposed to be constructed. He also sought to rely on the
judgment of this Court in Rubina Sajith v. State of Kerala
4
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
[2022(1) KLT 650] as well as Ganesan v. Vilavoorkal
Grama Panchayath [2021(1) KLT 392] in support of his
contentions. He further relied on the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra and
Others [(2023) 10 BOM CK 0052] to state that no
declaration with reference to Section 3 or notification under
Section 9 has been produced by the respondents herein, and
that mere reliance on certain guidelines is insufficient. He would
also submit that Ext.R3(e), relied on by the 3 rd respondent in
the counter affidavit, would also not be relevant on account of
the provisions of the Act.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation
would point out that it was only on account of the insistence
from the side of the Station Commander of the Pangodu Military
Establishment that they were not in a position to issue the
building permit. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent
sought to justify the action by placing reliance on a series of
guidelines issued in this regard, which were produced along with
5
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.
6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the
connected records.
7. The provisions under Sections 3, 8, and 9 of the Act
require to be referred to, which reads as under:-
“8. Land to be marked out, measured, registered and
planned.–As soon as may be after the publication of the
declaration aforesaid, the Collector shall cause the land to be
marked out and measured, and shall also prepare a register
and a detailed plan, which shall be on a scale not smaller than
six inches to the mile, showing accurately every building, tree
and other obstruction.
9. Notice to persons interested.–(1) At any time before
the expiration of —
(a) the period of eighteen months from the publication of
the declaration referred to in section 3, or
(b) such other period not exceeding three years from the
said publication as the [Central Government] may, by
notification in the Official Gazette direct in this behalf,
the Collector shall cause public notice to be given at
convenient places on or near the land, stating the effect of
the said declaration and that claims to compensation for all
interests in such land affected by anything done or ordered in
pursuance of such declaration may be made to him:
Provided that, where anything has been done in exercise of
6
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239the powers conferred, in case of emergency by section 6, sub-
section (3), the notice prescribed by this section shall be
given as soon as may be thereafter.
(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of any damage
ordered to be done or, in the case referred to in section 6,
sub-section (3), done in exercise of any of the powers
conferred by the said section, and the particulars of any
restrictions attaching to the land under section 7, and shall
require all persons interested in the land to appear personally
or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein
mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after
the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature
of their respective interests in the land and the amount and
particulars of their claims to compensation for damage to
such interests and their objections (if any) to the
measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in
any case require such statement to be made in writing and
signed by the party or his agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on
the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons
known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled
to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents
authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the
revenue-district in which the land is situate.
(4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and
has no such agent the notice shall be sent to him by post in
a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address
or place of business.”
7
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
8. The provisions of Sections 3 and 9 of the Act specifically
provide that a declaration, as well as notice as stipulated
thereunder, are required for enforcing restrictions sought with
respect to the constructions in the vicinity of an establishment.
On the basis of a declaration under Section 3, the provisions of
Section 8 further provide for marking/measurement, etc. of the
land in question. On the basis of the decision taken as above,
Section 9 further provides for the issue of notices to the persons
interested in the matter. There is no dispute in the case at hand
that the stipulations under the afore Sections have not been met
by the 3rd respondent herein. In this connection, I notice the
judgment of this Court in Rubina Sajith (supra), wherein it has
been categorically found that when there is no
publication/notice with reference to the provisions of Section 3
or 9 of the Act referred to above, the restrictions imposed
thereunder could not be enforced. Similarly, the judgment of
this Court in Ganesan (supra) has also laid down as under:-
8
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
“10. Sub-section (2) of S.3 of the Act provides that in the
declaration issued under sub-s.(1) of S.3, the Central
Government shall state the place where a sketch plan of the
land can be inspected. In other words, it is obligatory for the
Central Government to prepare a sketch plan of the land in
respect of which restrictions are imposed in terms of the
declaration for the inspection of the public at the place
mentioned in the declaration. Further, S.8 of the Act makes it
obligatory for the Collector to cause the lands covered by the
declaration to be marked and measured and prepare a
register and a detailed plan showing accurately every
building, tree and other obstruction in such lands. The second
respondent has not made available the sketch plan of the land
in respect of which restrictions are imposed prior to Ext.R2(g)
declaration nor did he make available the register maintained
in respect of the same under S.8 of the Act. In the
circumstances, I am of the view that the restrictions on
construction in terms of Ext. R2(g) declaration do not apply
to the lands around the establishment of the Air Force at
Mukkunnimala.”
9. In the light of the afore, unless and until there is a
declaration, specifically with reference to the Pangodu Military
Establishment, the provisions of the Act could not be made
applicable.
9
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
10. Furthermore, this Court notices that the 3 rd respondent
herein has been seeking to place much reliance on the guideline
dated 18.05.2011 issued in the matter, produced as Ext.R3(a).
True, the provisions of Ext.R3(a) provide that with respect to
any constructions coming within the radius of 100 metres of a
defence establishment, the matter requires to be referred to the
next higher authority by the Station Commander, and to convey
the objections and views to the local municipality or the State
Government agencies. At the same time, the guideline at
Ext.R3(a) dated 18.05.2011 has since been diluted by Ext.P5
guideline dated 21.10.2016, as per which, the restrictions even
with respect to construction near the Defence
establishments/installations, are limited only as regards 193
stations listed in Part A of Annexure to the circular and 149
stations listed in Part B. It is not in dispute that the Pangodu
Military Establishment is not forming part of the Annexure
forming part of Ext.P5 circular. At this juncture, Sri.Ashok
Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would also add
10
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
that there is much difference between a Military Establishment
and a Military Camp, and in the case at hand, at Pangodu, there
is only a Military Camp. In any event, I notice that Ext.P5 has
not made any reference, whatsoever, to the Pangodu Military
Camp or the establishment at Thiruvananthapuram. Though the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has also sought to rely
on Ext.R3(e) guideline dated 23.12.2022, to state that the
Pangodu Camp has been specifically referred to in that
notification and hence, any construction within a radius of 30
metres requires an NOC to be obtained in the matter, I am of
the opinion that Ext.R3(e) would not be applicable for more than
one reason. Firstly, Ext.R3(e) has been issued only on
23.12.2022, seeking to supersede the earlier guidelines.
Secondly, the mention made at serial No. 95 of the table forming
part of Ext.R3(e) only describes “Thiruvananthapuram”. There
is no mention as to which Camp/Establishment is sought to be
covered by Ext.R3(e). At this juncture, this Court also notices
that Ext.R3(e) has sought to identify the unit concerned
11
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
specifically at serial Nos.18 to 21 of part 2 of the Annexure,
specifically mentioning about INS Zamorin, INS Venduruthy,
INS Dronacharya Fort Kochi, Navel Armament Depot Alwaye,
Weapon Equipment Depot, etc.
11. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out by Sri.Ashok
Kumar, the Bombay High Court has categorically found that,
with reference to the interdiction under the Act, a
circular/guideline is not sufficient, and there should be a
declaration/notification with reference to the provisions of the
said Act. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the
reliance placed on Ext.R3(e) is not to be entertained.
12. Furthermore, I also notice the provisions of the Kerala
Municipality Building Rules, 2019 (for short, the ‘Building
Rules’). The afore Building Rules, to the extent applicable with
reference to the date of Ext.P2 application (28.12.2021), had
specifically provided that an NOC/permission originally required
to be obtained by the Corporation or local authority, only with
respect to the buildings, which were within a radius of “10
12
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
meters” from the Defence Establishment. Here, going by the
stand taken by the 3rd respondent in their counter-affidavit, it is
not in dispute that the proposed site is at a distance of 27
meters from the Defence Establishment concerned. Therefore,
with reference to the provisions of the Building Rules, I am of
the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner ought not
to have been rejected. True, the provisions of the Building Rules
have since been amended with effect from 29.10.2025 alone,
which would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the
case.
13. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition
would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P3. At this juncture, the
learned counsel for the respondent Corporation would point out
that at present, building permit applications are processed
online (Ksmart software) and therefore, the petitioner may be
directed to file the application online.
13
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
Taking note of the afore submission, there will be a
direction to the petitioner to file an application online through
Ksmart software. But it is clarified that the application to be
filed as above is to be processed with reference to the law which
was in existence as on 28.12.2021, without insisting on any
NOC.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
AP JUDGE
14
WP(C) NO.959 OF 2023 2026:KER:28239
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 959 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT 11/04/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 28/12/2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO E8/32303/2022 DT 13/05/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO RB3/266/2021-LSGD DT
12/02/2022 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GUIDELINE
NO. F.110261212011/D(LANDS) DT 21/10/2016 AND THE
LIST OF DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS IN SOUTHERN COMMAND
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES NO. 11026/2/2011/D
(LANDS) DATED 18.05.2011 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Exhibit R3(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM WATCH AND WARD
UNIT 23 MARATHA LI LETTER NO.544/LAND/Q DATED 18
MARCH 2023
Exhibit R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 403251/NOC/KANNUR/Q(L)
DATED 07 SEP 2022 ISSUED BY HQ SOUTHERN COMMAND
Exhibit R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE A TO LETTER NO.
F.11026/20/2011/D(LANDS) DATED 23.12.2022 ISSUED
BY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 303/1/NOC/CIV/Q DATED 20
OCTOBER 2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit R3(g) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETTER NO.
35243/85/L AND(POLICY AND ANC) DATED 04.01.2018
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Exhibit R3(h) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISPLAY BEFORE THE DEFENCE
AREA
Exhibit R3(i) THE TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR ISSUE OF NO
OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) FOR BUILDING
CONSTRUCTIONS DATED 21.03.2023 ISSUED BY IHQ OF
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (ARMY)
Exhibit R3(j) THE TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR ISSUE OF NO
OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) FOR BUILDING
CONSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ON
23.12.2022: IMPLEMENTATION DATED 01.05.2023