IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4019 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.MOHAMMED NAJEEB, 14/690, NAGINA MANZIL KUNHIRAMBALAM, P.O.KALLAI, KOZHIKODE-673 003, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND POWER OF ATTORENEY HOLDER, K.ABDULLA KOYA, NAGINA MANZIL, KUNHIRAMBALAM, P.O.KALLAI, KOZHIKODE-673 003. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 001 2. SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.4019 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted an application for building permit on 30.6.2010 to construct a residential house in his property comprised in Re-survey Nos.152 & 162 of Nagaram Village. The said application was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.10.2010. Evidently, the reason for rejection of the building permit is that the property in question falls under the residential zone under the DTP Scheme and there is a proposal to construct a road having a width of seven metres under the DTP Scheme. The DTP Scheme in question is of the year 1998 and evidently, it was never been implemented. That apart, no notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued so far proposing acquisition of the property in question. In that view of the matter, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra ((2005) 11 SCC 222). The facts are not under dispute. The DTP Scheme in question is admittedly of the year 1998. Admittedly, no notification under section 4(1) of the Land WP(C).No.4019/2011 2 Acquisition Act has been issued including the property in question for acquisition. Merely because of the fact that there is a proposal under the 1998 DTP Scheme for a road having a width of seven metres cannot be a reason for rejection of an application in the facts and circumstances. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (supra) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (supra). In such circumstances, Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside and there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 30.6.2010 for building permit in accordance with law. It is made clear that the DTP Scheme in question shall not be a ground for rejection. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge