Rajan V.V vs Payyannur Municipality
2025 Latest Caselaw 11888 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rajan V.V vs Payyannur Municipality on 3 December, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                      2025:KER:93701


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                        WP(C) NO. 32966 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

             RAJAN V.V.
             AGED 56 YEARS
             S/O. KELU, AISWARYA NIVAS, NEAR S.S. TEMPLE,
             PAYYANNUR, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.,
             PIN - 670307


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
             SMT.KARTHIKA PEETHAMBARAN
             SMT.NEERAJA VENUGOPAL
             SHRI.ARJUN J DAS
             SMT.VINEETHA S. LAL


RESPONDENT/S:

    1        PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY
             P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
             SECRETARY.,
             PIN - 670307

    2        THE SECRETARY,
             PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR
             DISTRICT., PIN - 670307


             BY ADV
             SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
             GP, SRI. K. JANARDHANA SHENOY

        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2025:KER:93701
WP(C) NO.32966 OF 2025

                                     2
                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                     --------------------------------
                   W.P (C) No.32966 of 2025
                      -------------------------------
            Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2025

                               JUDGMENT

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

prayers:

" i). issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 2nd respondent to sanction Building Permit to the petitioner to construct a commercial building as applied vide Exhibit.P4 Plan, without insisting to adhere the DTP Scheme as alleged in Exhibit.P8 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(ii). Petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the English translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language.

(iii). Issue such other reliefs as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents

are denying the building permit on the ground that the area is

included in the District Town Planning Scheme (DTP) and there is

a proposal for widening the road. According to the petitioner, he

surrendered 1.75 cents of land out of 7 cents, free of cost to the

respondents, for an approach road to Payyannur Railway Station, 2025:KER:93701 WP(C) NO.32966 OF 2025

with an assurance from the Municipality that the setback will be

exempted when the petitioner constructs a building. But, when the

petitioner applied for the building permit, the same was rejected

on the ground that there is a DTP scheme to the Municipality and

as per the scheme, the area is included in the proposal for

widening, is the grievance of the petitioner. According to the

petitioner, in a similar situation, vide Ext.P9 judgment, this Court

directed to issue building permit. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contentions raised in this Writ Petition. The Standing Counsel

submitted that the Ext.P9 judgment is not applicable. Only a draft

DTP scheme proposal is sent to the government for approval. If

that is the case, as of today, there is no DTP scheme. According to

me, there is no barrier in issuing a building permit. It is a settled

position that simply because there is a proposal for widening the

road or a proposal for a DTP scheme, a building permit cannot be

rejected.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions.

2025:KER:93701 WP(C) NO.32966 OF 2025

1. The 2 nd respondent is directed to issue a building

permit based on Ext.P4, 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/-

                                                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                                                      JUDGE

SSG


    Judgment reserved           NA
      Date of judgment         03.12.2025
     Judgment dictated         03.12.2025
  Draft Judgment Placed        04.12.2025
 Final Judgment Uploaded       05.12.2025
                                                     2025:KER:93701
WP(C) NO.32966 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32966 OF 2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3762/2019 DATED 28/12/2019 OF SRO., PAYYANNUR Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20/9/2016 ISSUED BY THE PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION, PAYYANNUR Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/7/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/7/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6/8/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/3/2025 IN WP(C ) NO. 1283/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT