Kerala High Court
Sajeem Elachola vs The Malappuram Municipality on 17 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:42911
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32161 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SAJEEM ELACHOLA,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.UMMER ELACHOLA, YOUNUS MANZIL,
KOOTTILANGADI, KOOTTILANGADI POST,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI.ABDUSSALAM PULLIYIL THATTAN
THODIYIL, PIN - 676506
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K.
SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N
SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
MALAPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
OFFICE OF THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY,
MALAPPURAM P.O,MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
BY ADV SHRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED,
STANDING COUNSEL- MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32161 of 2024
2
2025:KER:42911
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Exts. P4 and P5
communications and direct the respondents to
reconsider the petitioner's application for a building
permit for the purpose of commissioning a Petroleum
Retail Outlet.
2.The petitioner is a co-owner of the property
covered by Ext. P1 possession certificate. The petitioner
proposes to establish a Petroleum Retail Outlet in the
said property on the basis of Ext. P2 letter of intent. For
the said purpose, the petitioner had submitted an
application for a building permit to construct the sales
building of the Petroleum Retail Outlet. However, by Ext.
P4 order, the second respondent had rejected the
petitioner's application on three grounds. Subsequently,
the second respondent, suo moto, modified Ext. P4 order
and passed Ext. P5 order, stating that the petitioner's
WP(C) NO. 32161 of 2024
2025:KER:42911
application for a building permit cannot be considered
for the reasons (a) a proposal for road widening as per
the master plan and (b) the property is situated in the
residential area. Immediately, the petitioner submitted
Ext. P6 Purchase Notice to the second respondent under
Section 67(1) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning
Act, 2016, to purchase the property. However, the
second respondent failed to purchase the property within
the prescribed sixty days. Similarly, as per Ext. P8
Development Plan, a Petroleum Retail Outlet (Filling
Station) can be commissioned in the residential area
with the concurrence of the Chief Town Planner. In view
of the refusal of the second respondent to purchase the
property, condition No.1 has become redundant, and in
light of Ext. P8, the second respondent is obliged to
forward the application to the Chief Town Planner for the
concurrence. Hence, Exts. P4 and P5 orders may be
quashed.
WP(C) NO. 32161 of 2024
2025:KER:42911
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit
asserting that, as there is a proposal to widen the road
as per the master plan and the property is situated in a
residential area, the petitioner's application for the
building permit has been rightly rejected.
4. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner handed
over the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.
40088/2024, wherein this Court, while dealing with an
identical matter and following the law laid down in
Maymunath v. State of Kerala (2022 (5) KLT 338), has
held that if the Municipality does not purchase the
property within 60 days from the date of receipt of the
Purchase Notice, then the contention regarding
anticipated acquisition becomes untenable.
6. I fully concern with the above well-settled
principle of law and repel the respondents' objection in
WP(C) NO. 32161 of 2024
2025:KER:42911
the said regard.
7. Likewise, in view of Ext. P8 development plan,
the second respondent is obliged to forward the
application for concurrence to the Chief Town Planner.
8. On a consideration of the facts and the
materials on record and the finding rendered above, I am
satisfied that the writ petition is to be allowed.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i) Ext. P4 communication is quashed.
(ii) Condition No.1 in Ext. P5 communication is
also quashed.
(iii) The second respondent is directed to
forthwith forward the petitioner's application for the
building permit to the Chief Town Planner as
contemplated under Ext. P8 Development Plan for
concurrence, within four weeks from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the
WP(C) NO. 32161 of 2024
2025:KER:42911
application, the Chief Town Planner shall take a decision
on the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously
as possible.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
mtk/17.06.25 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 32161 of 2024
2025:KER:42911
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32161/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT - P1 . A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 11/09/2023 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAPURAM VILLAGE
EXHIBIT - P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED
15/01/2024 OF THE HPCL
EXHIBIT - P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
EXHIBIT - P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/06/2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MALAPPURAM
MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT - P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT - P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE NOTICE DATED
29/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT - P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
29/06/2024 OF EXT.P6 NOTICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT - P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MALAPPURAM
MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT - P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE AREA
