Acquisition for public purpose can proceed even if it deviates from the stipulations in the Master Plan.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are stated to be the joint owners in possession of 21 Cents of land in Resurvey No.31/35, 36 of Elathur Village. A house situated on the said land was re-constructed after obtaining a building permit from the 8th respondent Corporation, in terms of the Master Plan applicable to the respondent Corporation and sanctioned under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act , 2016. The permit dated 15.1.2021 is produced as Ext.P1 and the occupancy certificate granted on 20.5.2022 is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioners contend that the property in question lies within the Corporation limits in a residential zone in the Zoning Regulations specified in the Master Plan. As per the Master Plan, the proposed width of the access road of the aforementioned property of the petitioners is 18 metres (8 metres wider than the existing road). The relevant portion of the Master Plan is produced as Ext.P3 and the proposed Land Use Map of Kozhikode Urban Area Master Plan 2035 is produced as Ext.P4.

2. On the strength of Exts. P3 and P4 the petitioners contend that the regulation of constructions and/or land developments on the sides of the new roads/roads proposed for widening as per the Master Plan shall be governed by the distance from the central line of the road unless otherwise specified in the Master Plan or Detailed Town Planning Schemes or any detailed road alignments approved by the Chief Town Planner concerned. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that even if the existing road with 10 metres width is increased to 18 metres as per the proposed plan, widening of the road should only take place equally from the central line of the road towards both sides and therefore, only 4 metres can be taken additionally from the adjoining properties on either side of the road for widening as per the Master Plan.

3. The petitioners submit that they came to know from the office of the Kerala Road Fund Board that there was a proposal for acquisition when the officials from the office of the seventh respondent came to the property of the petitioners on 27.7.2022 and placed survey stones 8.2 meters inside their property in a manner which would almost take half of the house of the petitioners. Though the petitioners pointed out the same was contrary to the measurement provided in Ext.P3 Master Plan, the officials responded by stating that the survey stones were being placed as part of the Pavangad -Ulliyery (PUKC) road widening project. Though the petitioners had submitted representation before the Public Information Officer of the seventh respondent, in the reply it was clarified that Pavangad -Ulliyery road is being widened to 14 metres, a copy of the road alignment which was designed and prepared by the third respondent was also furnished. Exts.P6 and P6(a) are the replies and the approved alignment of the PUKC road so obtained.

4. The contention of the petitioners, in short, is that the attempted acquisition is contrary to the stipulations in the Master Plan and also causes irreversible damage to the petitioner's property. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P8 circular issued by the second respondent dated 7.9.2023 to all departments to ensure that all new development brought into a place where there is a Master Plan/DTP Scheme in existence should be implemented based on the Master Plan/DTP Scheme. The petitioner further submitted that the road alignment is fixed from the central line of the road, as in the case of the Master Plan, the instant issue would never have arisen.

5. A statement has been filed by the respondents, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

“2. It is respectfully submitted that developme