IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28459 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RAGHUNANDANAN.M., S/O.NARAYANAN, MOTTENGAD HOUSE, NECHIKUNDU, P.O.MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BALARAM.M., S/O.NARAYANAN, MOTTENGAD HOUSE, NECHIKUNDU, P.O.MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PADMAGIRISAN.M., S/O.NARAYANAN, MOTTENGAD HOUSE, NECHIKUNDU, P.O.MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SOBHANA.M., D/O.NARAYANAN, MOTTENGAD HOUSE, NECHIKUNDU, P.O.MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SREELATHA.M., D/O.NARAYANAN, MOTTENGAD HOUSE, NECHIKUNDU, P.O.MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8236 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28459/2009 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23700/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 22/09/2009. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 31/08/09. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER IN WP(C)NO.23700/2008 DTD. 13/03/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.28459 of 2009 and W.P(C)No.8236 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Common questions arise in these writ petitions. They were therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions submitted separate applications to the Secretary of Manjeri Municipality for permission to put up commercial buildings. The application submitted by the petitioners in W.P(C)No.28459 of 2009 was rejected on the ground that the land where they propose to put up a commercial building is earmarked to be acquired under the DTP Scheme for constructing a stadium and road and the said decision was communicated to them by Ext.P2 letter dated 31.8.2009. The application submitted by the petitioners in the connected writ petition was also rejected on the same ground and that decision was communicated to them by Ext.P2 letter dated 21.1.2010. The said decisions are under challenge in these writ petitions. The W.P(C).No.28459 of 2009 and W.P(C)No.8236 of 2010. :2:- petitioners contend that the DTP Scheme was approved by the Government and notified in the year 1990 and that though 20 years have passed thereafter, till date steps have not been taken to acquire the land required for implementing the DTP Scheme. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Raju S.Jathmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 11 SCC 222 the petitioners contend that while private properties can be the subject matter of a Detailed Town Planning Scheme the State cannot indefinitely prevent owners of private lands from putting their lands to any profitable use. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavits justifying their action. It is contended that as the land where the petitioners propose to put up buildings was earmarked for the purpose of development of a bye-pass road the applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. It is now well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that while private properties can be the subject matter of Detailed Town Planning W.P(C).No.28459 of 2009 and W.P(C)No.8236 of 2010. :3:- Schemes the State cannot indefinitely prevent owners of private lands from putting their lands to any profitable use. It is not in dispute that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme was approved by the Government and notified in the year 1990. Nearly 20 years have passed thereafter. However, till date, steps have not been taken to acquire the lands required for implementing the DTP Scheme. In such circumstances the State and its instrumentalities cannot, in my opinion, be heard to contend that the owners of lands which are included in the Detailed Town Planning Scheme should not be allowed to put their lands to any profitable use. In such circumstances I find merit and force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision taken by the Secretary of Manjeri Municipality to reject the applications for building permit submitted by the petitioners is illegal and unsustainable. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash the impugned orders and direct the Secretary of Manjeri Municipality to reconsider the petitioners' applications for building permit in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision thereon W.P(C).No.28459 of 2009 and W.P(C)No.8236 of 2010. :4:- expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before him. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.28459 of 2009 and W.P(C)No.8236 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st December, 2010