IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 29109 of 2011 (K) .................... PETITIONER(S) 1 SUDHI RAMAN MENON, AGED 73 YEARS S/O. LATE K.R.MENON KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE CHEMPUKKAVU THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. P. SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R. RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S) 1 THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE THRISSUR – 680 001. BY ADVS. SRI. K. P. VIJAYAN SRI. V. M. SYAM KUMAR SMT. KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI. V. N. HARIDAS SRI. K. P. VIJAYAN,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PN WPC.No. 29109 of 2011 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT. P1 COPY OF PLAN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT ON 28.09.2011. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 29109 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 notice and for a direction commanding the respondent to re-consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 plan, within a time limit as may be fixed by this Court. 2. Petitioner applied for a building permit for the construction of a multi-storied apartment in Sy.No.71 of Chempukavu Village before the respondent. The respondent issued Ext.P2 notice directing the petitioner to submit a revised plan, since the road situated adjacent to the property in question is proposed to be widened to 25 mts. as per the master plan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the master plan was formulated 25 years back, that the master plan is not in force, that the respondent has granted permission for construction of several buildings by the side of the above said road, which is proposed to be -2- W.P.(C).No.29109/2011 widened, without insisting for leaving the required space for widening and that there is no justifiable reason for the respondent to reject the original plan submitted along with the application. 4. 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. This Court in the decision reported in Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92) held that “any demand to create a rider over the title of the owner of the property under the pretext of a Town Planning Scheme which has not become operational by acquisition would, essentially be oppressive and would not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution”. Similar view was taken by this Court in the decision reported in -3- W.P.(C).No.29109/2011 Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 465). Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is quashed. The respondent- Corporation is directed to re-consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, 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 this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Corporation for further action. It is made clear that this judgment does not stand in the way of implementation of any scheme or to acquire the property for any public purpose in future. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.