The mere pendency of a civil suit, without an active injunction or stay order from a competent court, does not constitute a valid legal ground for public authorities to withhold consequential administrative duties or demand notices related to an granted layout approval.

O R D E R

Heard Mr. A. Sheik Nasurdeen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Mahaboob Athiff, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Notice to the third respondent is dispensed with in view of the order proposed to be passed.

2.The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a demand notice enabling the petitioner to remit the development charges pursuant to the layout approval granted for formation of a residential layout.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent had approved the residential layout in favour of the petitioner by proceedings dated 23.09.2022. However, despite such approval, the second respondent has not issued the requisite demand notice for payment of development charges, citing the pendency of a civil suit relating to the property.

4.This Court is of the view that the mere pendency of a civil suit cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for withholding issuance of a demand notice. Unless there exists a specific order of injunction or restraint passed by the competent civil court prohibiting the formation of the residential layout or restraining the authorities from proceeding further, the respondents cannot refuse to take consequential steps pursuant to the layout approval already granted.

5.In the absence of any order of restraint operating against the petitioner, the second respondent is under an obligation to issue the necessary demand notice pursuant to the layout approval granted in favour of the petitioner, thereby enabling the petitioner to remit the development charges and proceed in accordance with law.

6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to issue the requisite demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the development charges, pursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 24.04.2026, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon depositing of the development , the petitioner is preserved with the liberty to develop the land in conformity with the approved layout plan.

7.It is made clear that any action taken pursuant to such demand notice, including payment of development charges and further processing of the layout approval, shall remain subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit and any orders that may be passed therein.

8.There shall be no order as to costs.