IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20339 of 2011(N) ------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- THASLEENA, AGED 34, W/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PUZHAKKATHODI HOUSE, MUNDU PARAMBU P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM - 676505. 2. SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM - 676505. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. E.S.M. KABEER, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) 20257/2011 & WP(C) 20340/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 20339 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-07-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 11-4-11 IN WP(C) 7677/11 AND WP(C) 7702/11 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.20257, 20339 & 20340 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Common questions are involved in all the three cases and therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners applied for permission to construct residential building. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Municipality refusing grant of permit on the ground that the proposed construction would affect the road alignment conceived under the approved Detailed Town Planning Scheme. The ground stated in effect is that the properties are required to be acquired for road widening. The writ petitions are filed to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the Municipality and for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue building permit to the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Town Planning Scheme was introduced very many years back in the Municipality, that the Scheme remained a dead letter all through and nothing took place in pursuance thereof. The ::2:: W.P.(C).Nos.20257, 20339 & 20340 Of 2011 Scheme was not implemented and that neither the Government nor the local authorities have acquired any property for the said purpose. 4. 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. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, Exts.P1 communication is quashed. The Secretary of the Municipality is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners 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. The petitioner shall produce a copy of ::3:: W.P.(C).Nos.20257, 20339 & 20340 Of 2011 the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the Secretary of the Municipality for further action. The writ petitions are 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/-