The Interim Development Order prevails over the older Master Plan and governs the issuance of building permits under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of November 2019

Shaffique, J.

This appeal is filed against judgment dated 22/3/2019 in WP(C) No.6447/18 by which the learned Single Judge having rejected the relief of the petitioner seeking a direction to quash Ext.P3, permitted the petitioner to submit an application u/s 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the '2016 Act')

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.G.S.Raghunath contends that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the 1971 Master Plan still holds the field cannot be sustained in view of the fact that an interim development plan had come into force after promulgation of 2016 Act.

3. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner being an owner of 2.33 Ares of land in Thycaud Village, Thiruvananthapuram applied for a building permit before the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation which was rejected as per Ext.P2 notice dated 12/12/2017 stating that there is a proposal to widen the road by 21 metres and the staircase provided in the front open space is in violation of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. She was asked to submit a revised plan. A revised plan was submitted by the petitioner, which again came to be rejected as per Ext.P3 notice dated 12/2/2018 stating that the revised plan does not take care of the proposed road widening of 21 metres and therefore the application cannot be considered.

4. The contention urged was that the aforesaid contention was taken by the Corporation on the basis of the sanctioned Master Plan of 1971 and during pendency of the said plan, several new buildings have come up and the petitioner was being discriminated. Petitioner sought for quashing Ext.P3 and a direction to compel the Corporation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 27/11/2017 for the grant of building permit as modified and in accordance with the Building Rules in force without taking into account the Master Plan of 1971.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner produced certain additional documents along with the reply affidavit and also certain documents as Exts.P9 and P10. In the affidavit filed in support of Exts.P9 and P10, it is inter alia contended that the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram prepared another Master Plan in the year 1993 by substituting the 1971 Master Plan. But the same was not approved by the Government. Thereafter on 24th June, 2011, it was decided to prepare a new Master Plan. A draft Master Plan was prepared by the Corporation in the year 2012, which was approved on 12th December, 2012. The said Master Plan was approved by the Government as per GO(MS) No.4107/13/LSGD dated 19/3/2013. The said Master Plan was published by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on 8th March, 2013. Objections were invited from the public. Since several complaints were received from the people in the locality, the Government suspended the operation of the said Master Plan as per GO(MS) No.53/14/LSGD dated 22/6/2014. Direction was issued by the Government to prepare another draft Master Plan. Thereafter, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation prepared another Master Plan which was approved as per Interim Development Order dated 11/9/2017, which is produced as Ext.P10. It is therefore the contention of the petitioner that the interim development plan alone is in force and the Corporation cannot place reliance upon the 1971 Master Plan and insist that the road could be widened for 20 metres. Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that as per Ext.P10, provision had been made for widening of roads. Some having a width of 45 metres, 27 metres, 24 metres, 21 metres, 18 metres, 16 metres etc. As far as Karamana to Kalady road is concerned, which according to the petitioner is the road referred to in Ext.P2 as Karamana - Thaliyil road, as per the interim development plan, the width of the road is only 16 metres. The proposal is only to widen the road by 16 metres and therefore, t