IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16624 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJESH N., S/O.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AMINODU GARDENS, VATTALLUR P.O., MAKKARAPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 505. BY SRI. E.S.M. KABEER, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16624/2011-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 07/05/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12/08/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.21825/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.16624 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th June, 2011 JUDGMENT The application submitted by the petitioner for building permit was rejected as per Ext.P1. The reason assigned for rejecting the same is that there is a proposal to acquire the said property for residential purpose under the DTP Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a reason is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra ((2005) 11 SCC 222) and also the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465). 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondent. Obviously, the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected assigning the reason that there is a proposal to acquire the said property for residential purpose under the DTP Scheme that was admittedly, prepared about 30 years ago. Admittedly, so far, no notification has been issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S. Jethmalani's case (Supra) and the decision of this Court in Padmini's WP(C).No.16624/2011 2 case (supra) I am of the considered view that a mere proposal for acquisition under a DTP Scheme prepared about 30 years ago cannot be a reason for rejecting an application for building permit. Therefore, the Secretary of the respondent Municipality was not justified in rejecting the application for building permit by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 on the aforesaid ground. Ext.P1, therefore, calls for interference. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the respondent Municipality to consider the application submitted by the petitioner dated 5.4.2011, in accordance with law, without looking into the aforesaid DTP Scheme. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS