IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 23403 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ARUN.C.B,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE,CHERTHEDATH HOUSE,TRAMWAY ROAD, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,MUNICIPALI OFFICE,CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680307. ADV. MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23403 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TITLE DEED NO.4525/2006 DTD. 31.7.2006. EXT.P2: BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 15.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PROCEEDINGS DTD. 21.1.2009 OF CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P4: LETTER DTD. 16.7.2011 OF THE MUNICIPALITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23403 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order and for a direction commanding the respondent Municipality to give building number to the petitioner's building within such time as may be fixed by this Court. 2. The prior owner of the petitioner obtained Ext.P2 building permit dated 15.2.2006. After obtaining building permit, the prior owner assigned the property in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 document. Subsequently, the assignee's name was entered in the permit. Later, the petitioner applied for renewal of permit and permit was renewed up to 13.2.2012. The petitioner submits that on the basis of Ext.P2 permit, the petitioner had completed the construction of the building, that he submitted application dated 12.4.2010 for issuance of completion certificate and requested the Municipality to number the building. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Municipality rejecting the request stating that as per the Town Planing Scheme of the Municipality the area is a public and semi public zone and commercial buildings cannot ::2:: W.P.(C).No.23403 Of 2011 be permitted in the said area. The petitioner submits that he had spent several lakhs of rupees for completing the construction of the building having 2840 sq.ft, that he propose to conduct business in the building and now after completion of the construction of the building the stand taken by the Municipality that number cannot be assigned since the building is situated in an area reserved for public and semi public zone, is unjustified, arbitrary and illegal. 3. It is pointed out that the Municipality had granted a building permit as early as in 2006 and subsequently, renewed the permit from time to time up to 13.2.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the DTP Scheme was notified by the Government in the year 1974 and that the Scheme was not acted upon or implemented by the Municipality at any point of time. It is pointed out that though the DTP Scheme was notified there was no proceedings initiated for acquisition of the property for implementing the DTP Scheme. This Court had occasion to consider several matters in which Municipality declined permission to construct building for the very same reason. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.23403 Of 2011 4. The Apex Court, in the decision reported in Raju s. Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005 (11) SCC 222), held that though land belonging to private persons can be included in development plan, unless the land is promptly acquired by State Government or the Municipal Corporation to effectuate the said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use the property for any other purpose. This Court in the decision reported in Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92) held that “any demand to create a rider over the title of the owner of the property under the pretext of a Town Planning Scheme which has not become operational by acquisition would, essentially be oppressive and would not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution”. A similar view was taken by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 465). Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. 5. The Municipality filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that after completion of the construction of the building the petitioner shall submit completion certificate before the Secretary in the prescribed manner along ::4:: W.P.(C).No.23403 Of 2011 with documents like structural stability certificate, safety certificate and thereafter the Secretary shall conduct site inspection to satisfy and ensure that the work has been completed strictly in accordance with the plan and permit. In the context of the stand taken by the Municipality, it is for the petitioner to submit an application for numbering the building and for issuance of an occupancy certificate after completing the construction of the building, the petitioner is free to submit an application for completion certificate, immediately after completing the construction of the building, before the Secretary in the prescribed manner so that the Secretary can conduct site inspection to satisfy and ensure that the work has been completed. In the event of the petitioner submitting application, the Secretary shall pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of the application. Ext.P4 order is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-