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) 13288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
NIJEESH K.B – Appellant
Versus
MANKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2133 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SRI.SUSEEL M.MENON

The court ruled that a layout permit cannot be insisted upon for processing a building permit application in line with established precedents.

Headnote:The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of a letter insisting on a layout permit for a building application. The petitioner contended that such insistence is unwarranted. The court based its decision on precedents, determining that the impugned order should be set aside and directing consideration of the application within 30 days. The final outcome affirms the petitioner’s entitlement to a building permit without the previously required layout permit.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's application for building permit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court decision to set aside prior order and direct application consideration. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Exhibit-P4 letter and quash the same. (ii)Declare that the respondents cannot insist for a layout permit/plan, as done by the Exhibit-P4 letter, for considering the petitioner Exhibit-P3 application;

(iii) Issue a writ order of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider and take appropriate decision on the Exhibit-P3 application, within a reasonable time.

(iv) Dispense with filing of translation of documents in Malayalam;

(v) To pass such appropriate orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit. But, the same was rejected, stating that the petitioner has to produce layout permit/plan because it is included in the plot sub-division. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Even though notice is issued to the respondents, there is no appearance for the respondents.

4. After hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner, I think that the point raised by the petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner, in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nafeesa and Another v. Chavakkad Municipality and Others [2018 (3) KHC 473] and Panjal Grama Panchayat, Thrissur and Another v. Aneesh P [2022 (2) KHC 775] .

In the light of the same, I think the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) Ext.P4 is set aside.

ii) The building permit application submitted by the petitioner shall be considered, dehors the reason in Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if it is otherwise in order.

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