Subin S., Vs Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath

¶1

2025:KER:25585

¶2

WP(C) No.7447 OF 2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7447 OF 2025

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SUBIN S.,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARAN, MUTHIYARKODE HOUSE, KANIYARKODE POST,
THIRUVILWAMALA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680594

¶9

BY ADVS.
R.SREEHARI
HAMZA A.V.
APARNA M.P.
CIBY PAUL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THIRUVILWAMALA
POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680588

¶12

2THE SECRETARY,
THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THIRUVILWAMALA POST, THALAPPILLY
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680588

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

ADV R RAJPRADEP-SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2025:KER:25585

¶17

WP(C) No.7447 OF 2025

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is in possession on 2.79 Ares of property comprised in Old Survey No. 775/1-6-1 of Kaniyarcode Village, Thalappilly Taluk in Thrissur District. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation of the residential building constructed by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P3, has not been considered by the 2^nd respondent on the reason that, the property wherein the petitioner proposed to construct the same was included among the properties which required development permit/lay out approval. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application for building permit without insisting for the same.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the Grama Panchayath and the learned Government Pleader.

¶22

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the requirement of development permit/layout

¶23

¶24

2025:KER:25585

¶25

WP(C) No.7447 OF 2025

¶26

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

¶27

P. [2022 (2) KHC 775] .

¶28

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/layoput approval. Going through the materials placed on record, I find that the issue raised in this case is covered by the decisions rendered above. Evidently the only intention of the petitioner is to construct a residential building in the property having an extent of 2.79 Ares. He does not have any intention to subdivide the property.

¶29

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for building

¶30

WP(C) No.7447 OF 2025

¶31

¶32

2025:KER:25585

¶33

permit without insisting for a development permit and lay out Approval. However, while considering the said application, the 2^nd respondent shall ensure that, the application submitted by the petitioner 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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶36

SM/28.03

¶37

2025:KER:25585

¶38

WP(C) No.7447 OF 2025

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7447/2025

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
13/09/2024 ISSUED FROM THE KANIYARCODE
VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER,
EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE
PERIOD 2024 -2025
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANIYARCODE
VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
WITH NO.88381917 DATED 17/09/2024
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED
25/09/2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE WITH
NO.400687/BPRL01/GPO/2024/5974/(1) DATED
30/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2018 (3) KLT 1
[NAFEESA -VS- CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY]
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2022 (2) KLT 653
[PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH -VS- ANEESH]
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA DATED 07/08/2024 PASSED IN
W.P.(C) NO. 27324/2024

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶44

TRUE COPY

¶45

P.A.TO JUDGE

Subin S., v. Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subin S., v. Thiruvilwamala 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

S Mani Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh N.S., Vs the Secretary, Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat

Binith M.R., Vs the Secretary

Sekharan Mepparambath, Vs the Deputy Collector (Rr) Tirur

Ligeesh, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala