IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27787 of 2004(G)
1. VELAYAMKANDY NAFEESA, D/O. UKKAYYA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :SRI.M.P.PRABHANANDAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :01/02/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.27787 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 1st February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-
Corporation has rejected her application for building permit by Ext.P4
on the ground that proposal to widen the Paroppady-Kannadikkal
road has not been cancelled in the D.T.P.Scheme.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation wherein
it is conceded that pursuant to the proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, lands were acquired for the proposed widening of the
road and that the widening work is over. But what is contended is
that in the master plan, the proposal has not been cancelled.
3. I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is
right in his submission that it is only a technical contention which has
been raised by the Corporation. The issue is certainly covered by the
judgment of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3)
K.L.T. 465). At present there are no current subsisting proceedings
for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner’s property. Therefore
the original proposal to acquire the petitioner’s property for widening
of the Paroppady-Kannadikkal road cannot be a ground for rejecting
the building permit application submission by the petitioner. Of course
it is contended that Ext.P4 is an appealable order and it is open to the
W.P.C.No. 27787/04 – 2 –
petitioner to pursue his appellate remedies. However, since the issue
is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Padmini’s case
(supra), I am of the view that it will not be proper to relegate the
petitioner to avail that remedy. Accordingly, Ext.P4 will stand
quashed and the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider and
pass orders on plan and application submitted by the petitioner for
construction of the building, if the plan is otherwise in order,
uninfluenced by the proposal to acquire the property for widening of
the road and by anything that is contained in the master plan
regarding the proposed widening of the Paroppady-Kannadikkal road.
Orders as directed above will be passed by the respondent-
Corporation within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition will stand allowed to the above extent. No
costs.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE