2016 Supreme(Ker) 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
The District Town Planner & Anr. – Petitioners
Vs,
Antony Joseph & anr. – Respondents
W.A. Nos. 109, 623, 839, 2304 & 2369 of 2015
Decided on : 24-2-2016

The court held that the master plans and DTP schemes were in operation and binding on the petitioners, that the restrictions imposed on construction were reasonable and necessary to ensure planned development, that the petitioners could not be deprived of their right to property without due process of law, that the authorities had to take steps to acquire the land within a reasonable time if it was designated for compulsory acquisition, and that the petitioners could approach the authorities to dereserve the land if they wished to use it for a different purpose.

Headnote:

KMBR - Master Plan - DTP Scheme - Building Permit - Acquisition of Land - Kerala Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 2013 - Interpretation of Statutes - Applicability of Master Plan - Restrictions on Construction - Acquisition Proceedings - Time Limit - Purchase Notice - Variation of Plan - Dereservation of Land - Public Purpose - Right to Property - Judicial Review.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were denied building permits by the local authorities due to the existence of a master plan or DTP scheme, challenged the decisions, arguing that the master plans were not finalized or sanctioned, and that the restrictions imposed on construction were unreasonable and violated their right to property. The authorities contended that the master plans were in operation and that the restrictions were necessary to ensure planned development.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the master plans and DTP schemes were in operation and that the restrictions imposed on construction were necessary to ensure planned development. The court also held that the petitioners could not be deprived of their right to property without due process of law, and that the authorities had to take steps to acquire the land within a reasonable time if it was designated for compulsory acquisition. The court further held that the petitioners could approach the authorities to dereserve the land if they wished to use it for a different purpose.

Issues: 1. Whether the master plans and DTP schemes were in operation and binding on the petitioners. 2. Whether the restrictions imposed on construction were reasonable and necessary to ensure planned development. 3. Whether the petitioners could be deprived of their right to property without due process of law. 4. Whether the authorities had to take steps to acquire the land within a reasonable time if it was designated for compulsory acquisition. 5. Whether the petitioners could approach the authorities to dereserve the land if they wished to use it for a different purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the master plans and DTP schemes were in operation and binding on the petitioners based on the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 2013, which deemed existing master plans and DTP schemes to be published and sanctioned under the Ordinance. 2. The court held that the restrictions imposed on construction were reasonable and necessary to ensure planned development based on the importance of planned development in cities and towns, as well as the need to prevent illegal and unauthorized constructions. 3. The court held that the petitioners could not be deprived of their right to property without due process of law based on the principles of natural justice and the right to property under the Constitution of India. 4. The court held that the authorities had to take steps to acquire the land within a reasonable time if it was designated for compulsory acquisition based on the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 2013, which required the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings within two years of the coming into operation of the plan. 5. The court held that the petitioners could approach the authorities to dereserve the land if they wished to use it for a different purpose based on the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 2013, which allowed for the dereservation of land under certain circumstances.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the authorities and set aside the judgments of the single judge. The court also directed the authorities to issue building permits to the petitioners if they had not already been issued, and allowed the petitioners to approach the authorities to dereserve the land if they wished to use it for a different purpose.