IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8656 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. P.I. ZACHARIAS, PORUNNOOLIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA. 2. P.A. KURIAKOSE, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, EDAPPADY P.O., PALA. 3. ROSSAMMA CYRIAC, NEERAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KADUTHURUTHY. 4. THRESSIAMMA PAUL, PARAYIDATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ELANJI. 5. P. JOHN, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA. 6. ANTO P.JOHN, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA. 7. SUNNY JOSEPH, PORUNNOOLIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA. 8. JOSEY ANTONY, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, VALLICHIRA P.O., PALA. 9. P.A. ANTONY, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, VALLICHIRA P.O., PALA. 10. JIJO ANTONY, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, VALLICHIRA P.O., PALA. 11. JOSE THOMAS, PUZHAKARAVAYALIL, VALLICHIRA P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB THOMAS SRI.VPK.PANICKER WP(C).No. 8656 of 2008(E) 2 RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRTARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, CHIEF TOWN PLANNERS OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER'S OFFICE, NEAR NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, PALA. 7. THE MUNICIPAL TOWN PLANNER/ MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, PALA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, PALA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 8656 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 31, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are owners of separate but adjoining plots of lands falling within the jurisdiction of the 6th respondent Municipality. In this writ petition, their grievance is that although they have title in respect of the plots owned by them, they are not permitted by the respondent Municipality to make improvements therein. 2. According to the petitioners, they have been making applications to the Municipality for permitting them to make construction in the lands. Ext.P12 is referred as a common application made by them and it is stated that there was no response to Ext.P12 also. Thereafter they made separate applications evidenced by Exts.P13 to P24 and even to those applications, response was not forthcoming. In view of this the petitioners claim to have approached the Municipality and raised queries invoking W.P.(C) 8656 of 2008 2 the provisions of the Right to Information Act. To the queries so raised, response came by Ext.P25 stating that there are restrictions imposed in the master plan prepared by the Municipality. It is also stated in Ext.P25 that the properties of the petitioners were included in the master plan way back in 1987. It is on receipt of Ext.P25, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Standing counsel entered appearance on behalf of the 6th respondent Municipality. According to the standing counsel, a draft master plan was prepared in 1987 and that the same has been submitted for the approval of the Government and that approval is awaited. Thus, it is obvious that the master plan has not been finalised and that nothing in pursuance to the preparation of the draft has been done by any one of the respondents. 3. In my view, that a draft master plan is pending approval of the Government for the last more than 20 years, can be no reason for denying the legitimate right of the owners of the lands to make improvements in their lands. W.P.(C) 8656 of 2008 3 Though the preparation of the master plan is with laudable objects, the authorities are also required to finalise the same with due expedition. Since in this case, the draft is still remaining without approval, it will be unreasonable to deny the legitimate right of the petitioners to enjoy their properties. This position has been considered by this Court in the judgment rendered by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala -1999 (3) KLT 465. 4. For the aforesaid reasons I cannot sustain Ext.P25 and Ext.P25 will stand quashed. The 6th respondent Municipality shall reconsider Exts.P13 to P24 and pass appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-