1. The issue arises for consideration in these matters is common and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.P.(C).No.30905 of 2017 is a writ petition instituted challenging Ext.P3 communication of the Secretary of the respondent Municipality, by which the petitioner was informed that the building permit sought by him cannot be granted, as a portion of the property where the petitioner proposes to put up the building is required to be acquired in terms of the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme mentioned therein for formation of a new road.

3. W.P.(C).No.37945 of 2017 is a writ petition instituted challenging Ext.P4 communication issued by the Assistant Engineer of the first respondent Municipality, by which the petitioners were informed that the building permit sought by them cannot be granted as their property referred to therein is earmarked for acquisition in terms of the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme mentioned therein for the development of a bus stand.

4. The case of the petitioners is that in so far as the properties of the petitioners are yet to be acquired for implementing the sanctioned schemes, the building permits sought by them cannot be declined merely on the ground of the proposal for acquisition of the lands contained in the sanctioned Town Planning Schemes. They rely on the various decisions of this Court including the decision in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465) and the decision of the Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2015) 11 SCC 222], in support of the said case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the local bodies involved in the matters and the learned Government Pleader, who has appeared for the State in W.P.(C) No.37945 of 2017.

6. The question falls for consideration is whether building permit can be declined merely on the ground of the proposal for acquisition of the land contained in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme.

7. The grant of building permits sought by the petitioners in these matters is governed by the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the Municipality Act) and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (the Building Rules). The relevant provision in the Municipality Act is sub-section (1) of Section 393, which reads thus:

"393. Grounds on which approval of sight or permission to construct or reconstruct building may be refused.— (1) The grounds on which approval of site for construction or reconstruction of a building or permission to construct or reconstruct a building shall be refused are the following, namely:—

(i) that the work or use of the site for the work or any of the particulars comprised in the site plan, ground plan, elevations, sections or specifications would contravene provisions of any law, or any order, rule, declaration or bye-law made under such law;

(ii) that the application for such permission does not contain the particulars or is not prepared in the manner required by any rule or bye-law made under this Act;

(iii) that any of the documents referred to in section 387 has not been signed as required by rules or bye-laws made under this Act;

(iv) that any information or document required by the Secretary under the rules or bye-laws made under this Act has not been duly furnished;

(v) that the streets or roads have not been made as required under section 359;

(vi) that the proposed building would be an encroachment upon a land belonging to the Government or the Municipality; or

(vii) that the land is under acquisition proceedings.

The relevant provisions in the Building Rules are Rules 3A, Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 25, which read thus :

"3A. Provisions in the Town Planning Scheme shall prevail.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, provisions or regulations in any Town Planning Scheme in force under Town Planning Act shall prevail over the respective provisions of these rules wherever such schemes exist.

xxx xxx

xxx xxx

11. Approval of site