IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2295 of 2011(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. JOSE THOMAS, MANACKAKALARIYIL, P.O.THODUPUZHA. 2. ABRAHAM JOSE, DO. DO. 3. JACOB JOSE, DO. DO. 4. THOMAS JOSE, DO. DO. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA - 685 584. 2. THEODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA- 685 584. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TIVANDRUM - 695 001. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC.,THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALIT R3-4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.REMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 2295/2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19/01/2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/05/2010 IN WPC.NO.3980/2010 RESPONDEDNT'S EXHIBITS NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2295 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed assailing Ext.P1 whereby an application for building permit was rejected on the ground of existence of DTP scheme by name Thodupuzha Central Area West Development Scheme for the purpose of construction of a road. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the above scheme has not so far been sanctioned by the Government and therefore, the rejection is illegal. The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 3980/2010 to contend that Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside and the respondents are bound to reconsider the application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. Admittedly, the scheme referred above has not so far been sanctioned by the Government. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that a mere proposal cannot WPC.No.2295/2011 : 2 : be a reason for rejecting the request by a land owner for making a construction on his own property. In view of the admitted position that the scheme referred in Ext.P1 has not so far been assigned by the Government, the order of rejection cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the application dated 1.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner for building permit and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge