Legal rights of property owners are upheld against indefinite restrictions by town planning schemes absent acquisition actions.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P2 and P5 as unjust, illegal and unconstitutional.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2^nd respondent to to consider and pass orders Ext.P3 building permit application, dehors the objection regarding DTP Scheme and accordingly issue building permit on Ext.P3 application.

iii. To dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;

iv. And to pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner, along with his wife, submitted an application for a building permit before the 2^nd respondent for the construction of a mercantile/commercial building on their property. The said application was rejected as per Exts.P2 and P5 on the ground that, as per the approved Detailed Town Planning Plan (DTP) Scheme the subject land is shown as reserved for Public and Semi-Public purposes, and therefore, the construction of a mercantile/commercial building is impermissible. It is submitted that though the DTP scheme has been approved, the same has not been implemented for several decades. It is also submitted that mere inclusion of land in a DTP scheme cannot indefinitely curtail the constitutional right of the property owners, particularly, when no steps for acquisition have been initiated or completed. The petitioner submitted that in a similar matter relating to the neighbouring property of the petitioner, this Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, directed to reconsider the application for building permit dehors the objection relating to DTP scheme. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. I also heard the Special Government Pleader.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the Special Government Pleader to verify whether any review petition has been filed in Ext.P6 judgment. The Government Pleader, after verifying the same, fairly submitted that no review petition has been filed. This Court also directed the Standing Counsel to get instructions on whether any consequential steps were taken after the Ext.P6 judgment. The Standing Counsel submitted that, as directed in Ext. P6, the building permit has been issued. If that is the case, a similar order can be issued in this case also.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

1. Exts.P2 and P5 are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the building permit application and pass appropriate orders in it dehors the reason mentioned in Exts.P2 and P5 orders, if it is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-