Maneesh T.K., Vs Tholur Grama Panchayath

The petitioners are in possession of 2.03 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey Nos.272/1-16 and 272/1-17 of Edakakalathur Village in Thrissur Taluk. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the application submitted by the petitioners for a building permit for the construction of a residential building as evidenced by Ext.P1 has not been considered by the 2^nd respondent on the reason that, the property wherein the petitioners proposed to construct the same was included among the properties which required lay out approval/development permit. Ext P2 is the notice issued in this regard by the 2^nd respondent intimating the same. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners in such circumstances, to quash Ext P2 and seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the application for building permit.

¶26

A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondent Panchayath, wherein they have taken a stand that, this is included among the properties which require lay out

¶27

4

¶28

2025:KER:20975

¶29

WPC.No.43104/24 approval/development permit and on that reason the same cannot be considered.

¶30

I have heard, Sri.Rilgin V George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Santhosh P Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayath.

¶31

The only question that arises for consideration is

¶32

whether the requirement of development permit can be a reason to deny building permit to the petitioners. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the issue raised in this regard is covered in favour of the petitioners as per the decision rendered by this Court in Nafeesa and Another v. Chavakkad Municipality and Others [2018 (3) KHC 473] and Panjal Grama Panchayath and another v. Aneesh P. [2022 (2) KHC 775] .

¶33

In the above said decisions it has been held that when the owner of a small plot who does not have any intention to subdivide the property further, cannot be insisted for a development permit. Going through the materials placed on

¶34

5

¶35

2025:KER:20975

¶36

WPC.No.43104/24 record, I find that the issue raised in this case is covered by the decisions rendered above. Evidently the only intention of the petitioners is to construct a residential building in the property having an extent of 2.03 Ares. They do not have any intention to subdivide the property.

¶37

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext P2 and by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioners for building permit without insisting for a lay out approval/development permit. However, while considering the said application, the 2^nd respondent shall ensure that, the application submitted by the petitioners is otherwise in order.. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

rpk

6

2025:KER:20975

WPC.No.43104/24

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 29.10.2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-11-2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2023 IN WPC NO: 30058 OF 2023

Maneesh T.K., v. Tholur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneesh T.K., v. Tholur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Anoop Kumar, Vs the District Collector

Shibu U, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Kanhiroli Laila, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode

Karoorkkadavu Muslim Jama-Ath, Rep. by It’S President, Jalaludheen Kunju, Vs the District Collector

K.G Mathew, Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Manju G, W/O Santhosh, Vs District Collector