IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 25TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 30905 of 2017 -----------

PETITIONER -----------

N.T.ABUL HAKEEM, S/O. ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NOTTITHODI HOUSE, MANJERI - 676 121.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENT: -----------

MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANJERI - 676 121. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED --------------------

*ADDL.R2 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER MALAPPURAM- 676 505 *ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.01.2018 IN IA 16210/17 BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2018, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37945/2017 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sdr/-

WP(C).No. 30905 of 2017 --------------------------

APPENDIX ---------

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS ---------------------

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJERI TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.10.2016 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANJERI TO THE PETITIONER DATED 5.11.2016 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 7.8.2017 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 25252/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.08.2015 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sdr/-

C.R.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.30905 & 37945 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------

Dated 15^th January, 2018

J U D G M E N T

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 WPC Nos.30905 & 37945 of 2017 2 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.

WPC Nos.30905 & 37945 of 2017 3

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 thu