IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8521 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIPIN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.CHACKOCHAN, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, KODAKARA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REP.BY SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 307. BY ADV.MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8521 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE DTD. 4.11.2010. EXT.P2: POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 4.11.2010. EXT.P3: APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: LETTER DTD. 19.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2011(1) KLT 690. EXT.P6: REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 1.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.8521 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking a direction directing the respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit. The Municipality rejected the application stating that as per the Town Planning Scheme, the area is earmarked for construction of road and hence, petitioner's application for residential building cannot be allowed. 2. The petitioner submits that the area in which the petitioner's property is situated is a pacca residential area and there are several residential buildings and other buildings situated in and around the petitioner's property. It is also submitted that though the Town Planning Scheme was approved in 1974, it is not implemented for the last more than 36 years and the Scheme has become obsolete. 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 ::2:: W.P.(C).No.8521 Of 2011 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 wound not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution”. A similar few was taken by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 465). Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The respondent Municipality is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate 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. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.8521 Of 2011 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/-