IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 38565 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. .V.CHELLAN, C-9, I.L. TOWNSHIP, INSTRUMENTATION LTD., KANCHIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678623. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH MS.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD-678001. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD-678001. 4. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001. ADV. MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 MR.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 MR.P.S.APPU FOR R2 MR.A.R.NIMOD FOR R2 MR.C.A.ANOOP FOR R2 MR.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH FOR R1,3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38565 of 2010(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: LETTER DTD. 21.4.2008 ISSUED BY CHAIRPERSON OF LIONS CLUB INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION. EXT.P2: ORDER DATED 2.2.2006 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3: ORDER NO.EJBR/396/10.11/PW5 DTD. 12.10.2010 ISSUED BY R5. EXT.P4: LETTER DTD. 30.10.2010 FROM THE DIST.GOVERNOR, LIONS CLUBS INTERNATIONAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ........ // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.38565 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 and for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting permission for conversion of 14.80 cents under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to utilise the land for the purpose of constructing a commercial building. It is pointed out in the writ petition that the Municipality granted building permits to several persons and several buildings have been constructed around the property of the petitioner. By Ext.P3 order the Secretary of the Palakkad Municipality rejected the application for building permit on the ground that the land belonging to the petitioner is covered by Detailed Town Planning Scheme. 2. It is pointed out by the petitioner that though the DTP Scheme was notified by the Government several years back, it is not implemented till date and the Scheme has become obsolete. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.38565 Of 2010 3. 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.P3 cannot be sustained. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is set aside. The respondent Municipality is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate ::3:: W.P.(C).No.38565 Of 2010 orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. It is made clear that the judgment passed by this Court does not stand in the way of implementation of any Scheme or to acquire the property for any public purpose in future. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-