IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 335 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26644/2007 Dated 06/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4: ---------------------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, KOZHIKODE. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF CALICUT, KOZHIKODE. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJITHLAL P., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. BHARATHAN, LAL NIVAS, P.O.KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.JAYASANKAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 335 OF 2008 and C.M. Appln. No. 158 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. The delay of 33 days is condoned. 2. The 1st respondent approached the learned Single Judge challenging Exts.P2 and P5, wherein the request of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner for permitting him to put up a residential building came to be rejected on the ground that the plot owned by the writ petitioner is in the area demarcated for proposed project of “Dream City” in the master plan. 3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the matter on 06.11.2007 and till today, there is no acquisition of land as such by the concerned authority to put up the so called dream city. The situation of the writ petitioner under the circumstances would be, he is neither able to sell the property and to realise the amount so as to secure alternative residential property or to put up a house in the plot already owned by him. The main W.A. No. 335 of 2008 -:2:- grievance of the appellant seems to be that, the affidavit as directed by the learned Single Judge is not filed by the 1st respondent, therefore, the question of granting of any permission would not come. The fact remains that there is no stay of the judgment of the learned Single Judge till today. 4. In that view of the matter, the 2nd appellant was bound to grant the permission sought by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. Having regard to the fact that in spite of the disposal of the writ petition in 2007, the concerned authority has not even moved their little finger in the direction of putting up any dream city, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner/1st respondent must be allowed to put up his residential premises on the plot owned by him and the 2nd appellant has to grant permission for the same. As and when the dream of the concerned authority becomes a reality to put up the dream city, they can proceed with the acquisition of property and the 1st respondent cannot object the same on the ground that he was permitted to put up construction of a building. W.A. No. 335 of 2008 -:3:- With these observations, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the appellants to issue the permission sought by the 1st respondent to put up the construction within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb