IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20967 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JAMES K.P., S/O. POULOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDATHIL HOUSE, UNICHIRA, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KALAMASSERY, PIN-682 033. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- KALAMASSERRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KALAMASSERRY- 682 033. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.20967/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT DTD. 30.6.2011 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 23.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 20967 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed mainly seeking a direction to the respondent to issue permit to the petitioner for making additional constructions in his property as requested in the application for building permit. The application for building permit was rejected as per Ext.P2 communication stating that there is a proposal to widen the Edappally-Pukkattupady road and that the proposed construction would fall within the area proposed for widening the said road. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is illegal to reject the application for permission to construct a building on the ground that the area, wherein the proposed construction is to be carried on, is proposed to be acquired for public purpose. According to the learned counsel, unless and until the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is -2- W.P.(C).No.20967/2011 published, it cannot be presumed that the said area is under acquisition proceedings. It is pointed out that on that ground the respondent cannot freeze the land indefinitely. 3. In the decision reported in Raju S. Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005 (11) SCC 222) the Apex 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 the property for any other purpose. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, Ext.P2 order passed by the Municipality is quashed. The respondent-Municipality 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 -3- W.P.(C).No.20967/2011 of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Municipality for compliance. It is made clear that the judgment does not stand in the way of implementing any scheme or for acquisition of property for any public purpose in future. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.