1. The Petitioner, having proposed to construct its Corporate Office comprising Basements, Ground plus twelve floors and Terrace having a total area of 22535 sq.mt., submitted an application for building permit to the respondent Corporation. The land on which it wanted to construct is an extent of 3.20 acres in Survey Nos. 139/1,139/3, 140, 140/3, 140/1, 143/2 and 143/3 of Elamkulam Village and Survey Nos.227 and 228/1 of Poonithura Village, both in Kanayannur Taluk. Locationally, the property lies on the side of the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Link Road, which is a 22 meter wide public road.

2. Simultaneously, while applying for the building permit, the petitioner is said to have obtained the following necessary statutory clearances and certificates: (1) Exhibit P2 Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi; (2) Exhibit P3 Composite Consent under various Pollution Acts issued by Kerala State Pollution Control Board; (3) Exhibit P4 No Objection Certificate issued by Airports Authority of India; (4) Exhibit P5 No Objection Certificate issued by Southern Naval Command; (5) Exhibit P6 Confirmation issued by the fifth respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) that the land comes under the category of mixed use (residential and commercial) as per Varied Structure Plan, and (6) Exhibit P7 No Objection Certificate issued by Fire & Rescue Services Department.

3. As a matter of past developments, the petitioner pleads that prior to 2008, since there was no necessity to obtain permission from the second respondent for construction of multi-storied buildings for residential purposes, the first respondent, being the sole competent authority, granted building permits to the petitioner’s neighbouring plot owners to raise multi-storied complexes. The developers who took advantage of the statutory position include Kent Constructions, Indian Medical Association (IMA), Skyline Builders, Olive Builders, Desai Homes, etc. The structures raised by these companies or associations are said to have been located on either side of the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Link Road.

4. On receipt of the petitioner’s application, in terms of the statutory scheme, initially the first respondent forwarded it to the fourth respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the second respondent. The first respondent has, however, informed the fourth respondent through Exhibit P8 that it has no proposal involving the petitioner’s plot and that as per Clause 4.13 of the Structural Plan of Kochi City, construction for mixed use is also permitted in the said plot.

5. In course of time, through Exhibit P9, the first respondent rejected the petitioner’s application for building permit on the ground that the second respondent, through Exhibit P10, has directed it not to grant permission. Assailing Exhibits P9 and P10 proceedings issued by the first and second respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. In the above factual back drop, Mr. Joseph Markos, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner company, has strenuously contended that after the Kochi International Stadium was built, there is no other proposal for acquisition of land pending, requiring any ground or open space. According to him, adjacent to the petitioner’s property already many multi-storied constructions came up, duly sanctioned by the respondent Corporation.

7. Placing reliance on Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Kerala ((2005) 11 SCC 222) and Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009 (3) KLT 92), the learned Senior Counsel has, in the alternative, contended that though the land belonging to a private person can be included in a development plan, unless the property is acquired by the State Government or the Local Authority to effectuate the said purpose, the land owner cannot be denied the right to use the property for any other purpose.

8. Drawing my attention to Exhibit P13 plans of Cochin Corporation, the l