1 2025:KER:20975 WPC.No.43104/24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 43104 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: 1 MANEESH T.K., AGED 34 YEARS S/O KUNJUMON, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, KAKKASSERY, CHITTATTUKKARA VIA, ELAVALLY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680511 2 USHA, AGED 58 YEARS W/O S/O KUNJUMON, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, KAKKASSERY, CHITTATTUKKARA VIA, ELAVALLY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680511 BY ADVS. RILGIN V.GEORGE K.T.RAVEENDRAN AKSHARA K.P. ARATHY P.S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR- (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680552 2 2025:KER:20975 WPC.No.43104/24 2 THE SECRETARY, THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680552 BY ADV SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 2025:KER:20975 WPC.No.43104/24 JUDGMENT 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st respondent to consider the application for building permit. 2. 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 4 2025:KER:20975 WPC.No.43104/24 approval/development permit and on that reason the same cannot be considered. 3. 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. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is 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]. 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. Going through the materials placed on 5 2025:KER:20975 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. 6. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext P2 and by directing the 2nd 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 2nd 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. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk 6 2025:KER:20975 WPC.No.43104/24 PETITIONER EXHIBITS 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