IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 5674 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL P MOSA,S/O.VARGHESE P MOSA, PANAKKAL HOUSE,VENNUR.P.O,ELANAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.TONY CHACKO SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION OFFICE,THRISSUR. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1 &2 R3 BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.5674 of 2010-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner and in possession of 52 cents of land in Sy. No.927/1, 928/3 and 933/1 of Chembukavu village which lies within the heart of Thrissur Corporation. Through his power of attorney holder, the petitioner has applied for a building permit for constructing a four storied commercial building. His application has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P2 stating that the proposed site comes under the residential zone as per the D.T.P. Scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner sought exemption from the D.T.P. Scheme as per Ext.P3, which was also rejected stating that this Court in O.P. No.874/1997 ordered that there is no provision in the Town Planning Act to grant exemption to the buildings from zonal regulations. 2. Ext.P5 is the resolution of the Corporation dated 22.7.1996 to the effect that the Corporation had decided not to acquire the petitioner's property in Sy. No.927/1. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer showing that no land acquisition proceedings are pending with regard to the properties in Sy. Nos.927/1 and 928/3. The petitioner is now wpc 5674/2010 2 aggrieved by Ext.P8 communication, whereby his application has been rejected stating that as per the D.T.P. Scheme, land is to be acquired for transportation of lorry terminals and that the property in Sy. No.933/1 comes within residential zone. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit a fresh application for consideration specifying the details of the survey number of the property wherein the construction is proposed to be made. 5. In fact, as there is no proposal or notification as on today for acquisition, the objection that the property is required for the scheme, viz. “land to be acquired for transportation of lorry terminals” cannot be taken against him in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465). The said aspect also will be considered by the Corporation. If an appropriate fresh application is filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this judgment, the same will be considered in accordance with law and in the light of the findings rendered wpc 5674/2010 3 above, within three months from the date of receipt of the application. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/