IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 17772 of 2007(N)
1. G.P.AJITH, S/O. LATE G.P.BALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :11/09/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos.17772 & 18090 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 11th September, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.C.P.Peethambaran, counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.I.V.Pramod, counsel for the Thalassery Municipality.
2. My attention was drawn by the counsel for the petitioners to
the interim order dated 6.10.2006 in W.P.C.No.22259 of 2006. The
grievance of the petitioners is that the applications for permits for
construction of residential buildings on their properties in
Thiruvangadu Village within the area of the Thalassery Municipality
were rejected by the Municipality on the ground that the area upon
which the houses are proposed to be constructed comes under the
industrial zone as per a notified D.T.P.Scheme. It is contended that
the scheme which was notified in early 1950s has not been
implemented so far and on account of the long pendency of the
scheme, the scheme has become oppressive from the point of view of
the owner-citizens. My attention was also drawn to the various
judgments of this court such as G.C.D.A. v. Dr.M.Chandrasekhar
(1994(1) KLT 778), Hassan v. Corporation of Calicut (1996(2) KLT
839), Beerankutty v. Municipal Commr., Manjery (1984 KLT Sh.
W.P.C.Nos.17772 & 18090/07 – 2 –
Notes case No. 77, page 46). I find force in the above submissions.
Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners will
be ready to submit an undertaking to the effect that in the event of
any portion of the petitioners plot being required for any industrial
development scheme, they will be prepared to demolish and remove
the constructions put up by them without raising any claim
whatsoever for compensation provided a request in that regard
comes from the Municipality within one year of the Municipality
granting permits. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petitions will
stand disposed of quashing Ext.P2 in both the cases and directing the
Municipality to pass fresh orders on the applications submitted by the
petitioners for building permits and on the original of the plans
provided the petitioners file affidavits in which it will be stated that in
the event of any portion of the building being required by the
Municipality for industrial development within a period of one year of
grant of permits, no claims will be made by the petitioners for
compensation. Orders should be passed without being influenced by
the currency of the D.T.P.Scheme at the earliest and at any rate
within one month of the petitioners producing copy of this judgment.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
W.P.C.Nos.17772 & 18090/07 - 3 -
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE