Property owners must be compensated or allowed development when compulsory acquisition is not executed within statutory time frames, upholding their rights under the Town and Country Planning Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. DIAS, J.

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.10 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.445/4-2 in Njarakkal Village, situated within the territorial limits of the 2^nd respondent-Panchayat. The petitioner has submitted an application for building permit along with necessary plan to construct a new building in the said property. However, by Ext.P4 letter, the 3^rd respondent rejected the application on the ground that there is a proposal to widen the Vypin-Pallipuram State Highway based on the Cochin Structural Plan. The plan is four decades old and has become obsolete. In cases of identical nature, by Exts.P5 to P8 judgments, this Court has held that the plan has become obsolete. Therefore, Ext.P4 letter may be quashed and the 3^rd respondent may be directed to issue the building permit.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, it is contended that the petitioner’s application for building permit was rejected, since the proposed building is adjacent to the proposed Vypin-Pallipuram State Highway as per the Cochin City Structural Development Plan. Therefore, the petitioner has to leave a setback of 16.5 metres from the middle of the road, for which there is no space. Hence, Ext.P4 letter was issued.

3. The petitioner has produced Exts.P9 and P10 resolutions passed by the 2^nd respondent, wherein they have taken decision to reject the petitioner’s proposal due to the freezing of the properties in the area and remove the restrictions once the freezing is lifted.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioner had submitted a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (‘Act’, in short). But, said purchase notice was rejected by the 3^rd respondent.

6. It is not in dispute that by Exts.P5 to P8 judgments, this Court has permitted construction of buildings in the properties in the adjacent Panchayats, on the ground that the Cochin Structural Plan has become obsolete, as it was promulgated about 35 years back. Even though the State had challenged one of the judgments in W.A. No.1448/2025, the same was dismissed.

7. It is also undisputed that the Cochin Structural Plan has not been revised in the outskirts of the Kochi City.

8. In addition to the above, it is conceded that the petitioner had submitted a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Act, requesting the 2^nd respondent to purchase the petitioner’s property as it is reserved for the purpose for future road expansion. But, the said purchase notice has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent.

9. In the above context it is necessary to refer to Section 67 of the Act, which reads as follows:

“67. Obligation to acquire land in certain cases. - (1) Where any land is designated for compulsory acquisition in a Master Plan or Detailed Town Planning Scheme sanctioned under this Act and no acquisition proceedings are initiated for such land under the Land Acquisition Act in force in the State within a period of two years from the date of coming into operation of the Plan, the owner or person affected may serve on the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned, within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed, a notice (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase notice") requiring the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Villa