The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 communication of the second respondent rejecting his application for permission to construct a residential building in his property. His application has been rejected on the basis of the decision dated 19.5.2014 of the Inside Paddy Committee that the document registered prior to 3.5.2008 only would be considered for issuing a building permit. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground on which Ext.P6 has been issued is unsustainable. It is contended that, there is no approved Master Plan for the respondent Corporation. Further as per Exts.P2 to P4, the property has ceased to be a paddy field years back and is now a fully developed dry land. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's application is submitted to be highly improper.
3. Adv.K.P.Vijayan appears for the respondents.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P4 is unsustainable. It has been held 2 W.P.(C).No.30360 of 2014 by the Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [2005 (11) SCC 222) that rejection of a land owner's application to construct, on the basis of a Town Planning Scheme that has not been implemented is bad. This Court has also held so in a number of decisions. Ext.P6 is, therefore, unsustainable. The said order has also been issued without considering Exts.P2 to Ext.P4. The same is, therefore, set aside.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioner's land in order to verify the present condition thereof 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.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.