IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 549 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANTONY PAUL,S/O.A.A.PAUL,ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE,AMMADAM POST,THRISSUR-680 563. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THRISSUR CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION OFFICE,THRISSUR-680 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,THRISSUR CORPORATION,THRISSUR.ZONAL OFFICE, KOORKKANCHERRY, PIN-680 007. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.549/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BA/162/10-11 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, DATED 28/12/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 549 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for the State. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 and also for a direction commanding the respondents to grant building permit for construction in Sy.No.148/2 of Chiyyaram Village. Petitioner submitted an application for building permit before the Corporation for the construction of a commercial building. The Corporation by Ext.P1 order rejected the application stating that the property of the petitioner is included in the Kannankulangara DTP Scheme and hence permission cannot be granted for the construction of a commercial building. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the town planning scheme mentioned in Ext.P1 order is formulated -2- W.P.(C).No.549/2011 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.P1. 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 the said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use -3- W.P.(C).No.549/2011 the property for any other purpose. 5. In the abovesaid 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.P1 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.