IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21307 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SAJIMON, S/O.ANTHONY, KADAMPATTUPARAMBIL, THAZHEKKAD P.O., VIA ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ROSEMOL, W/O.SAJIMON, KADAMPATTUPARAMBIL, THAZHEKKAD P.O., VIA ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.HARIHARAN MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY, PIN-680 307, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-595 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21307 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER VIDE RECEIPT NO.5589726 DTD. 24.6.2011. EXT.P2: BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF TE 2ND PETITIONER VIDE RECEIPT NO.5589727 DTD. 24.6.2011. EXT.P3: ORDER DTD. 8.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4: COMMUNICATION DTD. 1.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADDRESSED TO THE ADVOCATE GENERAL IN CONNECTION WITH W.P.(C).NO.23468/2010 PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ...... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21307 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order and for a direction commanding the 1st respondent to grant building permit to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners applied for a building permit for construction of a house in their property. The petitioners submit that without hearing the petitioners and without affording an opportunity of being heard, the 1st respondent had rejected the application stating that the property of the petitioner comprised in survey No.293/1 of Kizhakkechalakudy Village was reserved for public and semi public use as per DTP Scheme. It is pointed out that the DTP Scheme relating to the Chalakudy East Village has lapsed/become unworkable. It is also pointed out that the Municipality had issued building permits to several applicants in the same locality and to those who applied for construction of building in survey No.293/1. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.21307 Of 2011 3. The Apex Court, in the decision reported in Raju s. Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005 (11) SCC 222), held that though land belonging to private persons can be included in development plan, unless the land is promptly acquired by State Government or the Municipal Corporation to effectuate the said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use the property for any other purpose. This Court in the decision reported in Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92) held that “any demand to create a rider over the title of the owner of the property under the pretext of a Town Planning Scheme which has not become operational by acquisition would, essentially be oppressive and would not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution”. A similar view was taken by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 465). Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is set aside. The 1st respondent Municipality is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners afresh and pass ::3:: W.P.(C).No.21307 Of 2011 appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. It is made clear that the judgment passed by this Court does not stand in the way of implementation of any Scheme or to acquire the property for any public purpose in future. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-