The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the 3rd respondent rejecting their application for the issue of a Development Permit. Their application has been rejected on the ground that as per the Master Plan of the Municipality, the petitioners' property is included in the paddy zone and therefore no Development Permit could be issued in respect of the said property.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the ground on which Ext.P3 has been issued is unsustainable. It is contended that, there has been no land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the Master Plan. In the light of the law laid down by the apex court, rejection of the petitioners' request on the said ground is unsustainable. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P3.
3. Adv.Sri.Philip J Vettikkattu appears for the respondents.
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. Permission has, at the same time been granted to construct commercial buildings, in the locality.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting W.P.(C) No.19787 of 2014 2 parties, it has to be held that Ext.P3 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] as well as other decisions of this Court on the point. The petitioners cannot be prevented from putting their property to any use as deemed fit by them, on the ground that there is a Master Plan in existence which has not been implemented for a long time. For the above reasons, Ext.P3 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3rd 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 deeds 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.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV