IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 13246 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. MAMMADU HAJI KUNDIL HOUSE, PONMUNDAM PO, TIRUR MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT , SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TIRUR MUNICIPALITY TIRUR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13246 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED 21.2.72 TOGETHER WITH TAX RECEIPT AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.9.73 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.7.02 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF TIRUR MUNICIPALITY EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.1.02 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.8.05 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.4.07 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.2.09 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.2.09 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.3.09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.4.09 ISSUED BY TIRUR MUNICIPALITY EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).13246/2009 ....................... Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that on 26.3.2005, he applied to the 3rd respondent Municipality for a building permit to construct a shop building. The application was eventually rejected by Exts.P5 and P8. It is challenging these orders the writ petition has been filed. 2. From Exts.P5 and P8, it would appear that according to the Municipality, a DTP Scheme was in force in relation to the area in question and that the said DTP Scheme was revised. It is also stated that if the petitioner is willing to surrender the required extent of land from out of his property, a Committee constituted under Rule 85 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules is willing to consider the application made by the petitioner. 3. Submission made by the petitioner is that the DTP Scheme as originally envisaged has already been implemented. It is therefore submitted that there is no reason for declining building W.P.(C).13246/09 2 permit at this distance of time. If, as a matter of fact, the DTP Scheme, as originally framed or revised has been fully implemented, it is open to the Municipality to reconsider the application made by the petitioner. 4. In view of the submission thus made by the petitioner, without expressing anything on the merits, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to take up the matter before the Municipality for a reconsideration of the application made by him in the which event, the 3rd respondent will reconsider the application in the light of the Scheme which is in force in relation to the area in question. This shall be done untrammelled by Exts.P5 and P8. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs