IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 17586 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- A.P. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, S/O. MAMMIKUTTY, ANNACHAMPALLI HOUSE, THALAKADATHOOR POSTW, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR. 3. SECRETARY, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR. ADDL.4. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.14.1.2009 IN I.A.430/09) R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU R2, R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.17586/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT)NO.2434/2005/LSGD DATED 21.6.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P1.6673/96 DATED 20.4.2006. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DATED 28.3.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS RETURNED BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.17586 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the failure to grant building permit. The District Town Planner, additional 4th respondent, has filed a counter affidavit, paragraphs 2 to 4 of which reads as follows: “It is submitted that the land of the petitioner stated in the writ petition is covered by the Government sanctioned Detailed Town Planning Scheme No.1 of Tirur municipality. There is a proposal in this scheme to form a bypass road connecting Tanur Road and Court Road to overcome the congestion in the busy city centre. There is also another proposal to form a branch road from the above said road which passes through the petitioner's land. But Tirur municipality had completed the formation of the said bypass road by accepting the land surrendered free of cost by the land owners with the deviation from sanctioned alignment which was WPC.17586/08 2 one condition put forwarded by the land owners for surrendering their land for the scheme. The land owners had also demanded abandoning of the proposal for branch road, which passes through the petitioner's land. Based on the said revised scheme as per Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) resolution of the Tirur municipality and direction of the Government the Town Planning Department has taken initiative to revise the scheme that involves a detailed study of the trend of development, land use on pattern, road network, the study of traffic and transportation etc. and the said process is in progress. It is submitted that if the aforesaid revised scheme is sanctioned by the Government the petitioner's land will not be affected. Therefore the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit can be finalised only after sanctioning the varied alignment as per the revised scheme suggested by the municipality and this is the reason for including the condition No.6 in Ext.P1 Government Order to revise the scheme before processing the petitioner's application for building permit by the municipality. WPC.17586/08 3 It is further submitted that the resolution passed by the Tirur municipality to revise the scheme is pending before the Government for sanction and the said process is in progress”. The aforesaid submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed without prejudice to contentions, however, directing that the respondents will act in terms of what is stated by the additional 4th respondent and would consider issuing the building permit provisionally and subject to the Government sanction for the revised scheme. All other issues on merits are left open. Let action follow within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.13/11.