IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29640 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NITHYANANDAN, KOOLYAT HOUSE, P.O.GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.P.S.ABHISHEK SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNER, GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. R1 BY SC KK CHANDRAN PILLAI R2 & R3- BY GP V MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/7/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 29640/2008) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 29.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28.3.2007. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE R1. lgk THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 29640 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 building permit and completed construction of a multi unit complex in 2007. The said building is yet to be numbered. The application for issuance of completion certificate and for numbering the building has been rejected by the Municipality as per Ext.P3, on a ground relatable to an interim development plan, which obviously means that there is no final development plan or scheme mandated under the provisions of Town Planning Act. No such scheme has become final. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in fact there is a scheme sanctioned way back in 1976, however that going by the survey numbers, the property of the petitioner does not appear to fall within the scheme. Even otherwise, the issue of clinging on to a development plan, which is more than three decades old and without any land acquisition made on the basis of that plan, it has necessarily to be treated that the plan cannot be deemed to be operational and petitioner is entitled to Wpc 29640/2008 2 the benefit of law laid by this court in Padmini V State of Kerala (1999(3)KLT 465) followed by Nasar V. Malappuram Municipality (2009(3) KLT 92). For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext.P3. First respondent is directed to issue completion certificate and also to number the building of the petitioner, if the application is otherwise in order, without reference to any grounds stated in Ext.P3. Let this be done within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/17/7