IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20999 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUMTHAZ HAROON, W/O.HAROON, 'SHADE', NEAR THALAMUNDA CANAL, P.O.KANJIRODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.C.J.AJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUPR REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN-670001 2. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY,KANNUR-670001 3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, KANNUR-670001. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20999/2010-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the second respondent rejecting the application for a building permit on the ground that under the DTP Scheme there is a proposal for widening the road by 7 mts. 2. Various grounds have been raised in the writ petition to challenge the same. It is submitted that the widening of a road requires acquisition of properties of various persons and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground to reject the application for building permit. The property of the petitioner cannot be indefinitely freezed merely on the ground of a proposal to widen the road. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality who opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 4. The above legal position is covered in favour of the petitioner. In Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465], the Division Bench after analysing W.P.(C). No.20999/2010 -:2:- various aspects has held that the right of an owner of a property cannot be restricted that too based on a mere proposal under the DTP Scheme which requires acquisition of property. In that view of the matter, order Ext.P2 cannot be supported and the same is quashed. 5. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for the third respondent. There will be a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the application afresh and take appropriate decision in terms of the building rules without reference to the DTP Scheme and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms