SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PRABHAKARAN V.S – Appellant
Versus
THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42948 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ, SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
For the Respondents: SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SMT.VINITHA B

The designation of land use can change based on new planning schemes, impacting building permit applications.

Headnote:The writ petition seeks a mandamus to grant a building permit, aiming to challenge the characterization of land as residential under DTP Scheme. The Court finds the application merits reconsideration, given the new Master Plan designates the petitioner’s property as part of the commercial core zone. Consequently, Ext.P3 is set aside and the application is to be reassessed within 30 days.

Table of Content
1. property assigned for commercial use. (Para 2)
2. court's observation on application merits. (Para 3)
3. decision directing reconsideration. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the second respondent to consider the and dispose the application of petitioner which leads to exhibit P3 communication and thereby grant building permit to the petitioner to construct a commercial building within a reasonable period which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to the exhibit P3 and set aside the same as illegal.

iii. Declare that the area in where the petitioner intended to construct the commercial building is not a residential zone as declared in the proposed DTP Scheme.

iv. 4. Such other writ, order or direction which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

v. Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents produced along with writ petition.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner purchased a property for the purpose of construction of a commercial building. The petitioner submitted an application for a building permit for commercial use. As per Ext.P3 communication, the Corporation informed that the property is included in the DTP Scheme and it is in the residential zone. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

4. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Standing Counsel submitted that as per the new Master Plan, the property of the petitioner falls in the commercial core zone. If that is the case, the application is liable to be reconsidered by the Corporation.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P3 is set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the building permit application, as expeditiously as possible,at any rate, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top