IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29874 of 2011(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.V.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, JAYATHI, HARISREE COLONY, VADAKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON,SC SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI.M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.29874/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD II VILLAGE. P2 COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 24/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALAKKAD II VILLAGE. P3 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE COLONY PUBLISHED BY THE KRISHNAKANANDHI RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 17/02/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. P6 COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION DATED GO(MS)210/2009 DATED 11/11/2009. P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/08/2010 IN WP(C)NO.21825/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 29874 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 and for a direction commanding the lst respondent to issue a building permit to the petitioner to construct a residential building in the plot of lad belonging to him. 2. Petitioner applied for a building permit to construct a residential building in the property owned by him. The application for building permit was rejected stating that the land belonging to the petitioner is zoned for paddy cultivation under the Detailed Town Planning Scheme and therefore, the application for building permit cannot be granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme has become obsolete, that the property is lying within the Municipal limits surrounded by several buildings. It is pointed out that the zoning regulations relied on by -2- W.P.(C).No.29874/2011 the Municipality came into effect in 1984 and that the same has not been implemented despite the lapse of several decades. It is also pointed out that the place where the petitioner sought to construct a residential building is pucca a residential area and that most of the residential buildings in and around the petitioner's property were constructed about 15 to 20 years old and that the Municipality had issued building permits to construct those residential buildings in the adjacent properties of the petitioner. 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. The proposed implementation of the scheme is not a reason for rejecting the application for building permit. Therefore, I am constrained to -3- W.P.(C).No.29874/2011 hold that Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, Ext.P4 order is quashed. The lst respondent-Municipality is directed to re-consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the judgment does not stand in the way of implementing any such scheme or for acquisition of property for any public purpose in future. Writ Petition is disposed of as above, HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.