The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of the second respondent rejecting an application for building permit submitted by them. Two reasons are stated in Ext.P6 for the rejection of their application. With respect to those reasons, the petitioners have serious objections. The first objection is that the property of the petitioners is situated by the side of a 15 metre wide road. However, on measurement it was found that the road in front of their property has only a width of 12 metres. The second reason is that the petitioners have not left out 5 metres of vacant space that is liable to be left out in accordance with the Detailed Town Planning scheme that is applicable to the Corporation.
2. Advocate Santhosh P. Poduval who appears for the petitioner points out that though the petitioners have been directed to ensure that the width of the road is 15 metres, there has been no acquisition of any portion of their property for the said purpose. In the absence of any land acquisition proceedings in implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, it is pointed out that the Supreme Court has held such conditions to be invalid. Reliance is also placed on Ext.P8 judgment, wherein with respect to the property of the owner of their neighbouring property, a similar order as Ext.P6 has been quashed by this Court.
W.P.(C) No.25965 of 2014 2
3. I have heard Advocate K.P.Vijayan who appears for the respondents also. According to the counsel for the respondents, the petitioners are bound to comply with the stipulations contained in the Detailed Town Planning scheme. If a proper plan is submitted, he assures that the petitioners' application would be considered afresh.
4. Having considered the rival contentions advanced before me, it has to be held that Ext.P6 is unsustainable. It has been held by the Apex Court as well as this Court that no restriction could be placed on the usage of a land by a land owner on the ground of existence of a Detailed Town Planning scheme that has not been implemented by follow up Land Acquisition Proceedings. Following the above dictum, Ext.P8 has been passed by this Court. I find no grounds to deny to the petitioners the benefits of Ext.P8 judgment.
For the above reasons, Ext.P6 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioners afresh, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. 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.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV