Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOBI PULIKKOTTIL – Appellant
Versus
KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1548 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RANJITH XAVIER
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.B.GANGESH, SC, KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SMT.DEEPA.V.G, GP
A building permit application cannot be rejected for lack of a development permit if the applicable legal precedents support the applicant's position.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to direct the Grama Panchayat to consider his application for a building permit without requiring a development permit. The court found that the requirement was not necessary based on prior judgments, leading to a favorable determination for the petitioner. The key issue was whether the insisted documents were needed, with findings based on applicable case law. The Writ Petition was disposed of by setting aside previous communications and mandating expedited processing of the application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's right to building permit without development permit emphasized. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel presentations summarized before court. (Para 3) |
| 3. court confirms necessity of prior case law supports decision. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and pass order in petitioner’s Ext.P2 application for building permit bearing number BPCN-00378302- 2025 (File No.4318675-2025) in accordance with law without insisting on production of Development Permit, expeditiously, within a timeframe that may be specified by this Hon’ble Court."
[SIC]
2. Petitioner purchased a small parcel of land, measuring 2.03 Ares in Peramangalam Village, Thrissur, for the purpose of constructing a residential house for his family is the submission. Petitioner submitted an application for a Building Permit before the 1strespondent Panchayat. The grievance is that the 1strespondent returned the application, insisting on the production of a development permit. According to the petitioner, he purchased the property from a larger extent and therefore, no development permit is necessary. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court inNafeesa v Chavakkad Municipality[ 2018 (3) KLT 1 ] andPanjal Grama Panchayat v Aneesh P[ 2022 (2) KLT 653 ]. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner in Nafeesa's and Panjal GramaPanchayat's cases (supra). If that is the case, the Ext.P3 communication can be set aside, and there can be a direction to consider a building permit application without insisting on a development permit, if it is otherwise in order.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. Ext.P3 is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the building permit application of the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
