IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21121 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.K.THASNIM, D/O.P.MAMUKOYA, HOUSE NO.5/812, CHALIKKARA ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE- 673 020. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE KOZHIKODE 673 032. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC SRI.K.D.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.21121/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12/1/2006. P2 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND REVENUE TAX FOR THE PROPERTY, DATED 12/1/2011. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 30/9/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21121 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order and for incidental reliefs. The application submitted by the petitioner for building permit before the 2nd respondent is rejected stating that the the property wherein the proposed construction is to be effected comes within “area to be acquired for residential zone” under the Detailed Town Planning (DTP) Scheme and hence the construction could not be permitted and therefore the application for building permit is rejected. 2. The petitioner pointed out that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme envisaged for the Municipality had not become operational and had been in papers only for the last several years. It is an undisputed fact that apart from framing the Scheme no further steps had been taken to implement the Scheme. The petitioner submitted that the property is located in a residential area and that there are several residential W.P.(C)No. 21121/2001 2 buildings in the vicinity and locality. It is said that several residential colonies are also situated in the locality. 3. In the decision reported in Raju S.Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2005 (11) SCC 222) the Apex Court held that though the land belonging to private persons can be included in development plan, unless the land is promptly acquired by the State Government or Municipal Corporation to effectuate the said purposes, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use land for any other purpose. The same view was taken by this Court in Nazar Vs. Malappuram Municipality (2009(3) KLT 92) and in Secretary to Government Vs. P.K. Nazar & another (2010 (1) KLT 286). I am therefore, constrained to hold that Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent/Secretary of the Municipal Corporation is quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and W.P.(C)No. 21121/2001 3 pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation . It is made clear that this judgment does not stand in the way of authorities to implement any scheme or for acquisition of property for any public purpose in future. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al