IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15747 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.ARIFA,K.V.M.HOUSE,VADAKKILLATH PARAMBA,RARICHAN ROAD, ERANHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE 673 032. 3. THE SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE 673 032. ADV. MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPN FOR R2 & 3 MR.K.D.BABU, SC FOR R2 & R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15747 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: NOTICE ISSUED BY R2 DTD. 18.5.2010. EXT.P3: JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.18312/2004 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P4: ORDER OF R3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.15747 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The application filed by the petitioner for construction of a residential building in the property of the petitioner has been rejected stating that the proposed construction would affect the construction of 8m road under the District Town Planning Scheme. Ext.P4 is the order. The petitioner pointed out that there was a proposal for construction of 8m road under the Town Planning Scheme, that the proposal was formulated in the year 1990, but, till date, no steps have been taken to acquire the properties as per the DTP Scheme. 2. 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 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. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.15747 Of 2011 3. In a similar case, where there was a proposal for construction of a road under the DTP Scheme for the same Ward, this Court issued directions directing the authorities to grant permission to the petitioner therein to construct a residential building. Ext.P3 is the judgment in W.P.(C).No.18312/2004. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The 3rd respondent 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 3rd respondent for further action. 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/-