Section 67(2) necessitates a timely resolution for land acquisition by municipalities, which directly impacts the legitimacy of permit rejections.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner decided to construct a building in her 2.5 cents of land. She applied for a building permit. But as per Ext.P8 order, the 2nd respondent rejected the application citing DTP Scheme. The petitioner issued Ext.P9 purchase certificate to the local authority and it was received on 18.12.2021. The 2nd respondent again rejected the application for building permit by Ext.P10 order dated 17.01.2022. The DTP scheme has become obsolete and the same has not been implemented in full despite the lapse of several decades, is the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the DTP scheme referred has so far remained only in paper as a mere proposal without any implementation. It is also the case of the petitioner that no decision is taken by the Panchayat as per Section 67 (2) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act , 2016 (for short the Act, 2016). Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue a building permit to the petitioner as applied for;

II. Call for the Detailed Town Planning Scheme and approved Master plan of the first respondent and quash it in so far as it relates to the property of the petitioner by the issue of a writ of certiorari;

III. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to make constructions in the plot without waiting for future acquisition;

IV. Call for the records leading to issue of Exhibits P8, P10 and P11 issued by the second respondent and quash them by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order; and V. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (sic)

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. The counsel takes me through the pleadings and submitted that the original application for building permit was filed in the year 2018. As per Ext.P3, the Municipality rejected the application earlier citing two grounds. One of the ground to reject the application is that the land is included in the data bank. The second one is the DTP scheme itself. The counsel submitted that the petitioner obtained an order under Section 27A of the 2008 Act and Form-5 was also submitted to delete the land from the data bank and it is already deleted. The petitioner also paid the fees as directed in 27A order. Even then, Ext.P8 order is passed by the Municipality stating that the land is covered by DTP scheme. The petitioner submitted application under Sec.67 of the Act, 2016 as evident by Ext.P9 on 07.12.2021. Exts.P10 is the order passed by the Secretary referring to resolution. Ext.P11 is the resolution. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of Exts.P10 and P11 would not show that there is any decision by the Municipality to acquire the land. In such circumstances, Section 67 (2) is applicable and the counsel also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Hakim v. Manjeri Municipality and another [2018 (1) KLT 1026].

4. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality seriously opposed the contentions of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that a statement is also filed. The Counsel submitted that the Municipality already taken a decision to do the needful through the Secretary and decided to refer the matter to the Government. The counsel submitted that the same implies that the Municipality decided to acquire the land. Therefore, the counsel submitted that Section 67 (2) has no application.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. It will be better to extract Section 67 (1) and (2) here:

"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 la