Kerala High Court
Abdul Samad vs The Kodungallur Municipality on 11 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16738 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:67683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16738 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABDUL SAMAD,
AGED 35 YEARS
PUNCHAPPADATH HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM P.O.,
KODUNGALLUR, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
SMT.SURUMI NAZAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY,
KODUNGALLUR P.O, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680664
2 THE SECRETARY,
KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLUR P.O,
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680664
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RC) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP
SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16738 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:67683
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of a
property covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt and
situated within the territorial limits of the 1 st respondent-
Municipality. The petitioner along with the co-owner had
submitted an application for building permit before the
2nd respondent, to construct a commercial building in the
said property. However, by Ext.P2 order, the 2 nd
respondent has rejected the application on the ground
that there is a proposal to construct a bus stand as per
the draft master plan. Ext.P2 order is illegal and
arbitrary.
2. In the statement filed by the respondents 1
and 2, it is contended that the petitioner's application for
building permit was rejected since the property is
covered under the draft master plan of the 1 st respondent-
2025:KER:67683
Municipality. Though the petitioner had submitted a
purchase notice under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Town
and Country Planning Act, 2016 ('Act', in short), the
notice has not been considered. The writ petition is
meritless and may be dismissed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government
Pleader.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2 submits that, during the pendency of
the writ petition, the petitioner's purchase notice has
been rejected by Ext.R1(a) decision.
5. The petitioner's application for building
permit has been rejected solely on the ground that there
is a proposal to construct a bus stand within the 1 st
respondent - Municipality as per the draft master plan.
6. It is not in dispute that, even after the
receipt of the purchase notice, the 1st respondent has not
2025:KER:67683
exercised their right of eminent domain to purchase the
property. Thus, Section 67 of the Act comes into play.
7. In a plethora of judgments this Court has
held that, once a purchase notice is issued and the
authority fails to act within the prescribed time under
Section 67 of the Act, then the right of the land owner
gets crystalised to use the property for any other purpose
in accordance with law, and is not bound by any approved
Master plan or DTP Scheme. Then, there is no legal
embargo for the authority to act on the building permit
application [Read the decisions in Town Planner,
District Town Planning Office v. Joseph Jacob (2023
KHC 145) and Pradeep Kumar P.B. and others v.
Maradu Municipality and others (2022 (3) KHC 253)].
8. In light of the above exposition of law in
the aforesaid decisions, and the fact that the master plan
is only a draft, I repel the objection of the respondents in
Ext.P2 order, that the respondents are to be directed to
consider the petitioner's application for building permit.
2025:KER:67683
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider
the petitioner's application for building permit,
notwithstanding the proposal of construction of
bus stand as per the draft master plan. The 2 nd
respondent shall carry out the above exercise
within 30 days from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:67683
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16738/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.08.2023 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,
LOKAMALESWARAM
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
01.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07/11/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 29004/2019 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15/07/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13052/2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
13.03.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 16/1
DATED 14/06/2024
