The court affirmed that property owners are entitled to building permits despite pending municipal acquisition if statutory provisions are not followed.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to issue permit to the petitioners as sought for by them, which is the subject matter Ext. P1, as expeditiously as possible;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing to 2^nd respondent to consider pass orders on Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible also keeping in mind the law declared by this Hon’ble Court in District Town Planner, Thrissur Vs. Joby.M.C and others ( 2020 (6) KHC 455 ), and Pradeep Kumar. P.B and others Vs. Marad Municipality and others (2022(3) KHC 253);

iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and to quash the original of the same;

iii(a) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and to quash the original of the same;

iii(b) to declare that the proposed Master Plan and DTP Scheme, after submission of purchase notice by the petitioners cannot affect the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners in the light of above mentioned decisions of this Hon’ble Court.

iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

v) to permit the petitioner to produce translations of the vernacular documents as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court;”[SIC]

2. Petitioners are brothers and joint owners of an extent of 2 Ares 83.2 Sq.M (7 cents) of property comprised in Kacheri Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The petitioners have been paying basic tax in respect of above property, is the submission. The petitioners’ application for building permit was rejected as per Ext.P1 stating proposed road widening. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 purchase notice on 19.03.2025 as provided under Section 67 of the Kerala Town & Country Planning Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act 2016’). But the same was also rejected as per Ext.P3.

Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the adjacent property owner obtained building permit. The counsel also relied on the principle laid down by this Court in Pradeep Kumar P. B. and Others v. Maradu Municipality and Others [ 2022 (3) KHC 253 ] and District Town Planner, Thrissur v. Joby M. C.

and Others [ 2020 (6) KHC 455 ].

5. Admittedly, a purchase notice was issued by the petitioners and the same was rejected as evident from Ext.P3. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is like this:

“തീരുമാനം :

സമർപ്പിക്കപ്പെപ്പട്ട പ്പെ(cid:18)ർമിറ്റ് അപേ(cid:18)ക്ഷ പേസാൺ നിബന്ധനകൾ പ്രകാരം അനുവദനീയമല്ലാത്തതിനാലും ഡിടി(cid:18)ി സ്കീം പ്രകാരം പേ)ാഡ് വിപുലീകരിക്കുന്നതിന് വിഭാവനം പ്പെ/യ്തതായതിനാലും (cid:18)ർപേ1സ് പേനാട്ടീസ് നിരാകരിക്കുന്നതിന ് തീരുമാനിച്ചു.”

6. This is not a reason to reject a purchase notice issued in accordance with the Act 2016. In the light of Ext.P3, I think the petitioners are entitled for building permit. Moreover, this Court in Pradeep Kumar’s case (supra) observed like this: “26. Therefore, reading together the provisions of S.67 and S.50, necessary action will have to be taken, if the Government or the Municipal Corporation is not intending to acquire the property on receipt of notice under S.67 of Act, 2016. If such an interpretation is not provided to S.67, then the owner of a property, whose property is designated in any Master Plan or Town Planning Scheme, will not be in a position to develop the property to his advantage.

27. The said aspect is to be considered, takin