IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 37453 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THOTTATHIL NISHANA NOORI, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O.SALEEM, OLAVANKANDATHIL HOUSE, MATTATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. 2. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.M. SURESH BABU, R2 BY SRI.N.ABDUL MAJEED,SC, ADV.SRI.E.S.M.KABEER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 7677 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.37453 of 2009, 7677, 7678 & 7702 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated 11th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Common issues based on common facts posed for consideration in these writ petitions. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are owners in possession of certain extent of land within the limits of the respondent Municipality. For the purpose of getting building permit for construction of residential/commercial buildings they approached the respondent Municipality. As per the impugned orders in these writ petitions, the said request of the petitioners were rejected. The reason for rejection of the applications for building permit is one and the same in all these cases. According to the respondents, the area in question where the petitioners sought permission for building permit for carrying out constructions has been included in the DTP Scheme for various purposes and, therefore, according to them, as the area in question is already included in the DTP Scheme permission for building permit for residential/commercial purpose could not be granted. It was in the said circumstances that the applications for building permit submitted by the petitioners were WP(C).37453/2009 & connected cases 2 rejected. It is challenging the orders rejecting the applications for building permit that these writ petitions were filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are unsustainable in view of the various decisions of this Court on the said subject. It was submitted that this Court considered the question whether an application for building permit could be rejected on the ground that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme did not provide for grant of permit. This Court in Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92) and Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465) considered the said issue. The above decisions were rendered in tune with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra ((2005) 11 SCC 222). In the light of the said decisions, it is contended that, the reason assigned for rejecting the applications for building permit is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the issue has to be considered afresh. 4. A statement has been filed in these writ petitions on behalf of the respondent Municipality. A perusal of the statement would reveal that the applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected solely for the reason that the building permits requested for could not be granted WP(C).37453/2009 & connected cases 3 as the Detailed Town Planning Scheme did not provide for grant of building permit. According to the respondent Municipality, they have no authority to modify the master plan without the approval of the Government or to grant permission against the approved scheme. Though the scheme in question was approved by the Government as early as in 1984 admittedly, the same was not at all implemented, since then. In the said circumstances, in fact, the Municipality sought for varying the scheme. The objections and suggestions made by the Municipality pursuant to the Government order dated 22.12.2008 are still pending consideration before the Government. According to the respondents, the Municipality is also waiting approval of the same. I am of the view that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the decisions of this Court reported in 2009 (3) KLT 92 (supra) and 1999 (3) KLT 465 (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 11 SCC 222 (supra). In the light of the said position obtained in these cases the impugned orders in these writ petitions viz., Ext.P1 in all these writ petitions are set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to reconsider the respective applications submitted by the petitioners for building permit, in the light of the decisions of this Court WP(C).37453/2009 & connected cases 4 and the Apex Court referred above. Orders in that regard shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS