IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26747 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.C.DINESH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANANKUTTY NAIR, 8/567, PECHIYAMMAN NAGAR, KALPATHY POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY. 4. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R2 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 26747 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 refusal of application for building permit. The ground of rejection is that the land in question is part of the area earmarked to be paddy fields in terms of the master plan; approved under the Town Planning Act. The learned Special Government Pleader for Local Self Government Department is right in pointing out that the classification of certain lands as green belt in terms of the Town Planning Act is abundantly necessary for the management of the environment in connection with the planning of Towns, Municipalities etc, in terms of Town Planning Act. The fact of the matter remains that if I were to believe the photographs on record as exhibits, almost every parcel in the locality has been permitted to be developed and changed over to construct dwelling units. If the Town Planning Scheme was operational, it would be a matter of national shame and a constitutional fraud to say that large extent of areas which ought to have been kept away from construction Wpc 26747/2009 2 activities are permitted to be utilised for such purpose. The stand taken by the Municipality appears to be slightly different. It essentially goes by the ground realities and submits through its learned counsel that recommendations have been made to the Government to grant certain exemptions and modifications even in terms of the Town Planning Act. Under such circumstances, the issue of permit to the petitioner could be ultimately considered for grant, only depending upon the decision that the competent authority in the Government may take. Taking this submission of the Municipality into consideration, it is ordered that the Municipality's request stated to have been made on 28.2.2009 and pending before the Department of Local Self Government shall be taken up by the competent authority in the Government and a decision issued, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues are left open. Ext.P1 will stand quashed and the application of the petitioner will wait for being considered following the decision of the Government as afore- directed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/10