IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20697 of 2011(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- SAKEER.T, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.YUSUF, THOPPIL HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI PO, MUNDU PARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM - 676 519. 2. SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 519. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. E.S.M. KABEER, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 20697 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-07-2011 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.A. TO JUDGE Mn HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20697 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29h day of July 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 order and for incidental reliefs. The application submitted by the petitioner for building permit before the 2nd respondent is rejected stating that the bye pass road proposed in the Detailed Town Planning (DTP) Scheme is through the proposed site and therefore the application for building permit is rejected. 2. The petitioner pointed out that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme envisaged for the Municipality had been in papers only for the last several years. It is an undisputed fact that apart from framing the Scheme no further steps had been taken to implement the Scheme. It is pointed out that the property is situated in an W.P.(C) No.20697/2011 2 important locality within the Municipal town surrounded by residential houses and colonies. 3. In the decision reported in Raju S.Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2005 (11) SCC 222) the Apex Court held that though the land belonging to private persons can be included in development plan, unless the land is promptly acquired by the State Government or Municipal Corporation to effectuate the said purposes, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use land for any other purpose. The same view was taken by this Court in Nazar Vs. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92) and in in Secretary to Government Vs. P.K. Nazar & another (2010 (1) KLT 286). I am therefore, constrained to hold that Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. I am therefore, constrained to hold that Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. In the result, Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent/Secretary of the Municipal Corporation is quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the W.P.(C) No.20697/2011 3 application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation . The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al