IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16041 of 2009(A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.V.MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED KHALEEM AGED 37 YEARS, MANNISSERY HOUSE HAJIYARPALLI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16041/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER REGUSING TO GRANT BUILDING PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18/11/08 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31/07/08 OF THIS COURT IN WPC 22396/2009. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 8/8/08 OF THIS COURT IN WPC 22475/08. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 3/09/2008 OF THIS COURT IN WPC NO. 26696/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE. tga THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16041 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P1, by which, his application for building permit has been rejected on ground that the land is earmarked for being acquired for the purpose of constructing a metre wide road in terms of the DTP scheme. No land acquisition proceedings have been initiated. The statement on behalf of the respondent also shows that the scheme is yet to be finalised and approved by the Government. It is not published as an approved scheme and no acquisition proceedings have been initiated. Under such circumstances, applying the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and in Francis v. Chalakudy Municipality [1999 (3) KLT 560 (FB)], it has to be held that the impugned order does not stand for the specific reason that no acquisition proceedings have been initiated in terms of the Town Planning Act or the Land Acquisition Act. WPC.16041/09 2 For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned Ext.P1 and directing that application of the petitioner will be considered without reference to the ground stated in the impugned order. Let orders be issued in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.21/12.