The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 rejection of their application for building permit. The first petitioner is the owner of 0.40 Ares of dry land, the second petitioner is the owner of 0.40 Ares of dry land and the third petitioner is the owner of 0.35 Ares of dray land in Nedumangad Village within the limits of the respondents Municipality. The building permit sought for by the petitioners have been rejected for the reason that their lands are required for the purpose of providing a parking area of lorries. As per the Central Area Development Scheme that the petitioners' lands have been earmarked for the said purpose, it is stated. According to the counsel for the petitioners, no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated against their properties. The petitioners therefore pray that Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside. 2. I have heard Adv. P. Ramakrishnan, who appears for the respondents.
W.P.(C).No.15865 of 2014 2
3. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raju S.
Jathmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005(11) SCC 222), it is settled that a land owner cannot be deprived of his right to use his property on the basis of a development scheme that has not been implemented by the initiation of proceedings for the acquisition of his land. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no proceedings are initiated yet, for the acquisition of the petitioners' land. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioners' application for building permit on the ground stated in Ext.P1 cannot be sustained.
For the above reasons, Ext.P1 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' application for building permit afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, 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.
rkc.