The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent rejecting their application for permission to construct a commercial building in their property. Their application has been rejected on the ground that as per the Master Plan of the Municipality, the petitioner's property is included in the area earmarked as dry cultivation area and therefore no permission could be granted to construct a commercial building over the same. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ground on which Ext.P1 has been issued is unsustainable. It is pointed out that, there has been no land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the Master Plan that is said to be applicable to the Municipality. In the light of the law laid down by the apex court, rejection of the petitioner's request on the said ground is unsustainable. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P1.
3. Advocate ESM Kabeer appears for respondents 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that though the Master Plan has been in existence for quite some time, no proceedings for acquisition of the land have been initiated in implementation of the said scheme.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P1 is unsustainable in view of the dictum laid down by the apex court in Raju S.Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 11 SCC 222]. The petitioners cannot be prevented from putting their property to any use on the ground that there is a Master Plan in existence which has not been implemented for a long time. For the above reason, Ext.P1is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioners' land to verify whether the land continues to be a paddy field as described in the title deed of the petitioners and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge