The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scheme under the Town Planning Act does not automatically lapse if the acquisition of the land concerned under the scheme is not completed within three years of the notification under S.12.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The petitioners are owners of small extents of land within Chalakudy Municipality. With a view to take up a detailed town planning scheme restrictions were imposed on the user of the said lands. The petitioners applied for licences to construct houses. They received replies to the effect that the lands are freezed for the purpose of a detailed town planning scheme. The petitioners could not therefore put the lands to the use they wanted to.

2. On 1.11.1975 a notification was issued under S.8 of the Town Planning Act. The said notification indicated the properties sought to be included in the scheme. The said scheme was approved by the Government under sub-s.3 of S.12 of the Town Planning Act. Ext. P2 order dated 6.3.1984 was issued in that behalf. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the said Government order sanction had been granted only as regards the scheme for the purpose of an office complex at Chalakudy. On the scheme of the Act the properties were not acquired within three years of the notification dated 6.3.1984. According to the petitioners since the Government order under the scheme was not followed by a notification within three years of the Government Order, the scheme must be taken to have lapsed. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be perpetually prevented from using their lands for their own purposes and any such attempt would be unreasonable and violative of their rights under the Constitution of India. The petitioners have therefore filed this Original Petition for a declaration that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme promulgated by the Chalakudy Municipality and approved by the Government as per order dated 6.3.1984 had lapsed under the provisions of the Town Planning Act, for the issue of a writ of mandamus retraining the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioners to deal with their respective properties included in the notification dated 1.11.1975 and for other incidental reliefs.

3. The Chalakudy Municipality filed a counter affidavit contending that the Detailed Town Planning Scheme cannot lapse merely because the lands were not acquired within three years of 6.3.1984, the Government Order approving the scheme and that as soon as funds are available the scheme would be taken up and completed. The lands were needed for a public purpose and no relief should be granted to the petitioners in this proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The State of Kerala filed a counter affidavit contending that the lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired under the Detailed Town Planning Scheme, that the effect of not completing the acquisition of the lands within three years of the Government Order dated 6.3.1984 was only that before acquiring the land the Government will have to issue a fresh declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, that the Town Planning Act does not provide for the lapsing of a scheme on the ground that the land proposed for acquisition under the Detailed Town Planning Scheme was not acquired within three years of the notification, that the land was needed for a public purpose, that the lands of all the petitioners are not included in the proposal and some of them have not even sought permission and that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

5. When the Original Petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge felt that there was a conflict of views in this court on the question whether the scheme itself would automatically lapse if the lands were not acquired within three years of the notification under S.12(2) of the Town Planning Act and the matter required to be decided by a Division Bench. The Division Bench in its turn felt that since what was being canvassed for was the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench, it would be appropriate to refer the Original Petition to a Full Bench and thus referred the case to the Full Bench.

6. The Town Planni