'Rob Paul to pay Peter' seems to be the attitude of the State Government in acquiring valuable property in the heart of Ernakulam for housing scheme allegedly to ease out the problem of residential accommodation by paying a pittance as compensation and thereafter permitting the allottees and their transferees to set up commercial establishments. I shall refer to the exhibits in W.P (C) No.10130/2015 filed by the residents of the housing colonies for the sake of convenience since the other writ petitions are an off- shoot of the main writ petition challenging the coercive steps taken by the authorities in implementation of the interim orders therein.

2. The State Government by Ext.P1 notification accorded sanction for a Detailed Town Planning Scheme ['DTP Scheme' for short] for Elamkulam West under Section 12(5) of the Town Planning Act, 1932. Ext.P2 DTP Scheme accordingly sponsored by the second respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority ['GCDA' for short] inter alia stated as follows:-

"The problem of housing is very acute in Ernakulam. As a measure for relieving the housing shortage, this area is suggested for proper development. Based on the development plans for the city under preparation in this area, it is proposed to achieve a residential density upto 80 persons per acre. The Scheme may mainly help the lower income strata of the society. The policy is to retain the existing dwellings as far as possible except huts. All vacant lands within the scheme area have to be put to development in a minimum period. Acquisition of land, which is not fully built up is envisaged in the Scheme. Families displaced on account of the implementation of the Scheme would be given alternate accommodation within the scheme area. Out of the areas earmarked for acquisition in the Scheme for planned residential development, building plots may be released to the owners who could construct houses as per the provisions of the Scheme. Area acquired will be developed and disposed of by the Joint Town Planning Committee.

It is expected that about 1830 dwelling units could be made available under the housing schemes included in the plan." (emphasis supplied)

An extent of 8.78 acres of land was earmarked for public uses such as shops and schools and 65.83 acres was earmarked for planned residential development out of the total area of 97.15 acres to be acquired.

3. The draft scheme appended to Ext.P2 DTP Scheme is categoric that 'shops and business premises will not be permitted except in areas specified for the same' wherein retail trade could be carried on. Ext.P3 lay out plan prepared and duly approved by the Chief Town Planner clearly depicts the permissible nature of user of the plots under the DTP Scheme. Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of GCDA reflect that only 16 families have been rehabilitated within the scheme area in the process of acquisition. Ext.P4 minutes also reveal that lands have been allotted to Income Tax Department, Post and Telegraph Department etc. and that the Scheme is almost completed. This is in addition to land allotted to the Housing Board and the Cochin Shipyard Staff Co-operative Housing Society of course to remain within the DTP Scheme. Ext.P5 sale deed and similar deeds executed by GCDA in favour of the allottees specify that the land shall not be used except for residential purposes. The scope and ambit of this very Scheme has been dealt with in Philip George v. State of Kerala and others, 2014 (2) KLT 116 wherein it is observed as follows:-

"20. On a consideration of the legal provisions, therefore, it is apparent that in an area that has been developed in accordance with a scheme, that was validly prepared and duly notified in accordance with the provisions of the Town Planning Act, future construction must adhere to the terms of the scheme and the plan approved thereunder. This must be so unless and until the scheme itself is varied or altered by the State Government. This position w