JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. 1. 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. 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, 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 or notification under has been produced by the respondents herein, and that mere reliance on certain guidelines is insufficient. 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 or notification under 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 the counter-affidavit filed by the 3 rd 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. —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 the 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. 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.” 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 3 rd 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 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:- “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. 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. 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 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. At this juncture, Sri.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would also add 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 3 rd 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 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 meters” from the Defence Establishment. Here, going by the stand taken by the 3 rd 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. Here, going by the stand taken by the 3 rd 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. 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.