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. 26178 of 2009(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- DEEPA RAJENDRAN, "LAILA NIVAS", VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- VENGANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGANNUR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR 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. 26178/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 18693 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 12/08/2009 TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGANNUR VILLAGE. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 09/09/09 TO THE PETITIONER REJECTING HIS APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER GRAMED AS PER SRO NO. 572/1978 DT. 17/6/1978. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE. Tga THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26178 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for building permit on 27.8.2009. On 9.9.2009, he was served with an order rejecting that application on the ground that the request, if granted, would offend the Kovalam-Vizhinjam Area Development Scheme and the petitioner has to leave an open space of 9 metres on the front. It is also stated in Ext.P3 that the property of the petitioner is earmarked for agricultural purpose and construction of vacation cottage. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 relying on 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)]. Though the petitioner challenges the aforesaid scheme, only the panchayat is on the array. The scheme is notified by the Government. WPC.26178/09 2 In the aforesaid circumstances, preserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the said scheme at a later point of time, if it becomes required, this writ petition filed on 16.9.2009 is ordered directing the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 decision before the competent statutory authority. It is also directed that the said authority will exclude the time taken for prosecuting this writ petition to entertain any such appeal/revision and also to consider any application to condone delay, if filed in terms of law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly without entering on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.18/12.