Point of Law: Building permission - if the authorities mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 63 prepare Interim Development Orders having regard to the developments and development trends in the areas concerned, wherever master plans and town planning schemes have been published but not sanctioned, the same would redress the grievance of the people on account of the obsolete and redundant proposals contained in the published master plans and detailed town planning schemes as well.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. Petitioner owns, along with two others, a land measuring 15.605 Ares in Resurvey Nos. 83/3, 83/4, 83/5 and 83/6 of Kasaba Village in Kozhikode District. It is stated by the petitioner that the said land is situated in a commercially important area within the limits of the first respondent Corporation (The Corporation). In order to use the land beneficially, the petitioner and others have decided to put up a commercial building therein and preferred an application to the Corporation for building permit. On the said application, the petitioner has been issued Ext.P4 communication by the Corporation pointing out the defects noted on the application. According to the petitioner, he is prepared to cure the defects noted on the application except Defects 1 to 3 for, the same according to him, are unsustainable in law. Defect No. 1 noted on the application is that the area is covered by a Detailed Town Planning Scheme (the Scheme) and commercial buildings having plinth area exceeding 150 square meters are not permissible in the area in terms of the Scheme. Defect No. 2 is that Floor Space Index exceeding 1.5 is also not permissible in the area in terms of the Scheme. Defect No. 3 is that the Corporation proposes to establish a new road through the western side of the land in terms of the Scheme by acquiring a portion of the land of the petitioner and others, and the petitioner has not shown the said the road in the plan submitted along with the application for building permit.

2. The case of the petitioner as far as the first two defects are concerned is that the Scheme which was sanctioned by the Government as early as in the year 1998 has become obsolete on account of non implementation and the same cannot, therefore, be a ground for declining the building permit. As far as the third defect is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has served a notice on 22.07.2020 requiring the Corporation to purchase the land owned by him and others to the extent required for the proposed road as provided for under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (the Town Planning Act), there was no decision by the Corporation either to purchase the land or not to purchase the land within the time stipulated in the said provision and therefore, the proposal aforesaid cannot also be a ground for declining the building permit sought by the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the defects on those grounds in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. A statement has been filed by the Corporation contending that building permits cannot be issued otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

5. As noted, as far as the first two defects are concerned, the stand of the petitioner is that the Scheme which was sanctioned by the Government as early as in the year 1998 has become obsolete on account of non implementation and the same cannot, therefore, be enforced. Ext.P7 in the writ petition is stated to be the relevant pages of the report of a study conducted by the Town and Country Planning Department of the State Government in connection with the preparation of a new Master Plan for Kozhikode Urban Area. There is a reference in Ext.P7 report about the Scheme. It is stated in Ext.P7 report that the objectives of the Scheme were to widen NH 66 to enhance the internal connectivity and to promote the residential nature of the area. It is also stated in Ext.P7 report that the Scheme has been implemented fully only in respect of two roads namely YMCA Cross Road and Christian College Cross Road and partially only in respect of a few other roads. It is categorically stated in the report that the remaining proposals in the Scheme have not been implemented. The Corporation does not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid statements in Ext.P7 report. That apart, in suppor