IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 6016 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VISALA K., D/O.SREEDHARAN, 52 YEARS, KANDIYIL HOUSE, EDAVAZHIPURAM VAYAL, CIVIL STATION P.O.,KOZHIKODE-20,REP. BY P/A.HOLDER MANJULA K.,D/O.JAYANANDAN,28 YEARS,KANDIYIL HOUSE, EDAVAZHIPURAM VAYAL,CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-20. BY ADV. MR.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, (REP. BY ITS SECRETARY), CORPORATION OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6016 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: REJECTION ORDER DTD. 29.12.2009 BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXT.P2: LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE PROPERTY. EXT.P3: JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.612/2009 OF THIS COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.6016 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction directing the respondents to issue building permit to the petitioner and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get the building permit to renovate the existing house situated in R.S.No.55/1B in Ward No.34, EW 47 in Vengeri Village in Kozhikode District. 2. The petitioner submitted an application before the 1st respondent Corporation seeking permission to renovate the residential building. The said application was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the land is included in the 'Dream City' project. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Kozhikode. The petitioner pointed out that the proposal for acquisition of land for the 'Dream City' project is pending consideration before the Government since 1994, that no positive action was initiated on the side of the authorities to materialize the proposal and that no steps have been taken to acquire the land for the project under the Land Acquisition Act. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.6016 Of 2011 3. 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”. A similar view was taken by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 465). Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, Ext.P1 order is set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any ::3:: W.P.(C).No.6016 Of 2011 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 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/-