IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21312 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHIBU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001, REP. BY SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,TSSR CO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 21312/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/04/2010. P1(a):COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 20/04/2010. P2: COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY. P3: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 13/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION. P4: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 (1) KLT 690. P5: COPYOF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 (3) KHC 162. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHEMBUKKAVU DATED 20/04/2010. P7: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2010 (1) KLT 286. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.21312 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 and also for a direction commanding the respondents to re-consider the petitioner's application for building permit in the light of Exts.P4 and P7 judgments and pass orders within such time as may be fixed by this Court. Petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the lst respondent-Corporation for the construction of a commercial building. The lst respondent by Ext.P3 order rejected the application stating that the property of the petitioner is included in the Kannamkulangara Town Planning Scheme as public and semi public zone and hence permission cannot be granted for the construction of a commercial building. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the -2- W.P.(C).No.21312/2011 town planning scheme mentioned in Ext.P3 order is formulated some decades back and that the said scheme so formulated under the Town Planning Act is not in force. It is also pointed out that several commercial buildings are located in and around the property of the petitioner and in and around the locality. It is further pointed out that the Corporation and the Government have issued sanction orders for the construction of several commercial buildings in the locality and no purpose will be served by denying permit to the petitioner. In short, the counsel submits that the Town Planning Scheme has not been implemented, though the scheme is in papers for a considerable length of years and therefore there is no justification for the respondents in denying the permit applied for. It is also pointed out that there is no proposal for implementation of the scheme referred to in Ext.P3. 4. In the decision reported in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005(11) SCC 222) the Apex Court held that though land belonging to private persons can be included in development plan, unless the land is promptly acquired by the State Government or the Municipal Corporation to effectuate -3- W.P.(C).No.21312/2011 the said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use the property for any other purpose. 5. In the aboveaid fact and circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani's case (2005 (11) SCC 222), the decision of the Corporation rejecting the petitioners' application for building permit cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, Ext.P3 order passed by the Corporation is quashed. The Secretary of the Corporation is directed to re- 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. It is made clear that this judgment does not stand in the way of the authorities to implement any scheme or for acquisition of property for any public purpose in future. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.