Failure to act on a purchase notice under local planning laws negates acquisition claims.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing Exhibit P2 communication issued by the 2nd respondent;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner de hors the publication of master plan;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit – P3 application within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court shall deem just.” [SIC]

2. The above writ petition is filed seeking direction to quash Ext.P2 communication issued by the 2^nd respondent and to direct the 2^nd respondent to issue building permit dehors the master plan.

3. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit. The same was not considered because a master plan is in force. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 67 (1) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act , 2016 (for short “Act 2016”). The same is now rejected as per Ext.R1(a). The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.21975/2025 and submitted that the petitioner is entitled building permit.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

5. This Court perused Ext.R1(a). A perusal of the same would show that the petitioner already filed an application under Section 67 (1) of the Act, 2016. The same is seen rejected as per Ext.R1(a). This Court in the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in WP(C) No.21975/2025, observed like this:

“5. The only reason to reject the petitioner's application for building permit is that his property is covered under the master plan of the 1^st respondent- Municipality. In view of the said stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner had submitted a purchase notice under Section 67 (1) of the Act. But, the same has been rejected by Ext.P3 decision of the 1^st respondent-

Municipality.

6. In Maymunath V.B. v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (5) KLT 338] , this Court has categorically held that, if the Local Self Government Institution does not purchase a property within 60 days from the date of receipt of a purchase notice, then the contention regarding anticipated acquisition becomes untenable.

7. I fully concur with the well-settled principles of law and repel the objections raised by the respondents, especially after they failed to purchase the property of the petitioner.”

I think the same principle is applicable in this case also. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P2 is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the building permit application of the petitioner dehors the reason stated in Ext.R1(a) and the reason stated in Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if it is otherwise in order.

Sd/-