Kerala High Court
K.Muhammad Ashfaq vs The Secretary on 10 October, 2024
2024:KER:76473
WP(C).NO.24772/2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24772 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ,AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. ABOOTY, SHUKRIYA MANZIL, MAIN ROAD, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
BY ADVS. M/S.RAJESH V.NAIR & R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY,THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670101
2 THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
SMT.DEVI SHRI R., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:76473
WP(C).NO.24772/2024
2
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.
============================================
W. P. (C) No. 24772 of 2024
=============================================
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the Municipality
rejecting the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner
through Ext.P3. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that, the property is included
in the Master Plan where there is a road widening proposal.
2. The petitioner had issued Ext.P5 purchase notice dated 12.6.2024
under the provisions of Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning
Act, 2016 and the same has been received by the Municipality, as seen from
the acknowledgement produced.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that,
for want of funds, they could not get on with the proposed acquisition.
4. Both sides submit that the issue is covered in favour of the
petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Thalassery Municipality v.
2024:KER:76473
Puthalath Balakrishnan [2019 (3) KLT 154], which held that, when a purchase
notice is served, within 60 days from the date of the receipt, the authority is
statutorily required to decide on the acquisition of the property. This
statutory authority was obliged to acquire the land in question within the
period stated in Section 70 and if they do not, they would be obliged to seek
a variation of the scheme so as to exclude their proposal for future
development and consider the application for building permit, without
taking note of the development proposal.
5. Under such circumstances, Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a
direction to the Municipality to consider the application for building permit
afresh, without taking note of the fact that the property is included in the
Master Plan with a proposal for road widening, and pass appropriate orders
on the same, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. ,
JUDGE
MMG
2024:KER:76473
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.24772/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JENMAM THEERADHARAM DATED
26.03.2018 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID BY PETITIONER
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING
FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.06.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DECLINING THE PERMIT
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY PETITIONER
DATED 12.06.2024 TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED BY
THE PETITIONER.
