2025:KER:25587 WP(C) No.412 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 412 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: BABU P.D., AGED 42 YEARS S/O DEVASSY, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, ELAVALLY SOUTH,ELAVALLY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680511 BY ADVS. A.R.NIMOD M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT/S: KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAIPARAMBU, MUNDOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680546 BY ADV GANGESH K B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25587 WP(C) No.412 OF 2025 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is in possession on 6.99 cents of property comprised in Re.Survey No.50/9 of Anjoor Village, Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted by the petitioner for a building permit for the construction of a residential building, as evidenced by Ext.P2, has not been considered by the respondent on the reason that the property wherein the petitioner proposed to construct the same was included among the properties which required development permit/layout approval. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the application for building permit. 2. A statement has been submitted by the respondent Panchayath, wherein they have taken a stand that, this is included among the properties which require development permit and on that reason the same cannot be considered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the Grama Panchayath and the learned Government Pleader. 2025:KER:25587 WP(C) No.412 OF 2025 3 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the requirement of development permit/layout 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] and Panjal Grama Panchayath and another v. Aneesh P. [2022 (2) KHC 775]. 5. 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/layout 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 on the property having an extent of 6.99 cents. He does not have any intention to subdivide the property. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit 2025:KER:25587 WP(C) No.412 OF 2025 4 without insisting for a development permit. However, while considering the said application, the 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. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/28.03 2025:KER:25587 WP(C) No.412 OF 2025 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 412/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECIEPT DATED 04.11.2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF BUILDING PERMIT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WITH FILE NUMBER 400696/BPRL01/GPO/2024/8440 DATED 19.11.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 400696/BPRL01/GPO/2024/8440 /(1) DATED 12.12.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) 27967/2023 DATED 13.10.2023 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE