IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29328 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABI DAVIS P., PARAPILLY HOUSE, PARAVATTANI, NELLIKUNNU, THRISSUR-5. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION ZONAL OFFICE, OLLUKARA, THRISSUR. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1-3 MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29328/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1960/I/2009 OF OLLUKARA SRO. P2 : COPY FO APPLIATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 13/08/2009. P3 : COPY FO RECEIPT NO.142117 DATED 13/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHOWING PAYMENT OF BUILDING APPLICATION FEE. P4 : COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 15/09/2009 FROM R2. P5 : COPY OF LAND ACQUISITION CERTIFICATE DATED 12/08/2009 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OLLUKARA. P6 : COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29/10/2007 IN WP(C) NO.92/2007. P7 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22/09/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP (C) NO.34661/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29328 of 2009 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P4, by which an application made by the petitioner for building permit was rejected by the Corporation stating that through the site in question, the ring-road proposed as part of the master plan is to pass and therefore, construction cannot be permitted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ring road is only under proposal stage and that no formal scheme has been finalised, and that therefore the proposal cannot deprive the petitioner of his propriety right to make use of his land. 3. Although counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Corporation, there is nothing to indicate that anything has been done by the Corporation for acquiring land for implementing the DTP Scheme including the ring road as mentioned in Ext.P4, which is to pass through the property of the petitioner. In such a situation, there is no reason why the building permit should WP(C) No.29328/2009 -2- be rejected for the reason assigned by the Corporation. For that reason, Ext.P4 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner without reference to the Town Planning Scheme on the production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg