IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34983 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.SUNNY,S/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT CHOONDAL CHONADAN HOUSE, EPHOD TAILORS,PARAVATTANI,NELLIKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR-680 005. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE,OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.34983/2009-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the application for a building permit as per Ext.P2. The reason for rejection is that the area, going by the master plan, will have to be left for the construction of a road. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in Ext.P3 Judgment overruled the objections taken by the Corporation in respect of another applicant and same yardsticks will apply here also. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that as per the sketch produced by the petitioner, a portion of the land excluding an area of 2.30 metres towards west from the south east corner and an area having a length of 7 metres towards north from the south eastern corner of the land of the petitioner is included in the ring road proposed as per the master plan. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get building permit as per his application. 4. The legal issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by a series of decisions of this Court, namely, W.P.(C). No.34983/2009 -:2:- Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and that of the Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (11) SCC 222]. The decision in Nasar P.K. And others vs. Malappuram Municipality [2009 (3) KLT 92] also concerns the very same issue. It is clear that in the absence of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act application for building permit cannot be rejected on the ground that the area is required for widening of a road. The Scheme for road widening can be implemented only by acquiring properties. A person can be deprived of his property only by a procedure taken after following due procedure of law. In that view of the matter and in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Francis v. Chalakudy Municipality [1999 (3) KLT 560], the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Ext.P2 is, therefore, quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the Corporation to reconsider the application for grant of building permit in accordance with the Rules and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE