IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 20082 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHINY DAVID, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.C.J.DAVID, CHAMMANAM HOUSE, HOUSE NO.37, ST.ANTONYS STREET, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) MS.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 680001. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ZONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, OLLUR - 680001. ADV. MR.K.P.VIJAYAN FOR R1-2 MR.V.M.SYAM KUMAR FOR R1-2 MS.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS FOR R1-2 MR.V.N.HARIDAS FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20082 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1408/07 OF KUTTANALLOOR SRO. EXT.P2: COMMMUNICATION DTD. 20.5.2008 OF R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: REPLY TO EXT.P3 PETITION ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNER/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THRISSUR CORPORATION. EXT.P5: REPLY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/TOWN PLANNER, THRISSUR CORPORATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.20082 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 and for a direction directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for permission to construct a residential building. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent stating that the property comprised in survey No.302/4 of Ollur Village is proposed to be acquired for ring road as per the Master Plan. The petitioner submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent refusing building permit on the ground of proposed acquisition and development for which no steps have been taken till date is illegal and arbitrary. 3. 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 ::2:: W.P.(C).No.20082 Of 2011 Corporation to effectuate the said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use the property for any other purpose. This Court in the decision reported in Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92) held that “any demand to create a rider over the title of the owner of the property under the pretext of a Town Planning Scheme which has not become operational by acquisition would, essentially be oppressive and would not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution”. A similar view was taken by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 465). Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P2 order is set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh 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 the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent Corporation for further action. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.20082 Of 2011 The writ petition is 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/-