The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings of the first respondent by which an application for permission to construct a commercial complex has been rejected. The reason stated is that, the land was proposed to be acquired for establishing a bus stand cum commercial complex. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Ext.P3 communication issued by the State Government dated 17.12.2012 to the effect that, the land acquisition proceedings were not being pursued and that building permits could be issued to land owners against whom proposals for acquisition were pending. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent.
According to the first respondent, a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued in respect of the property as early as on 24.1.2001. For the above reason, 2 W.P.(C).No.15641 of 2014 it is contended that Ext.P1 is justified.
3. Heard Advocate Suresh Kumar Kodoth who appears for the petitioner as well as Advocate Vipin Das.T.K. who appears for the first respondent. In view of the decision Raju S.Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 11 SCC 222] of the Honourable Supreme Court, a proposal for acquisition cannot be a ground for rejection of an application for building permit submitted by a land owner. It has been held that though it is permissible for lands to be included in development projects, unless such projects are promptly implemented by follow up land acquisition proceedings, no restriction could be placed on the user of such land by a land owner on the said ground. In the present case, the contention advanced on behalf of the first respondent is that, a notification under section 4(1) of the Act had been issued in the year 2001. The same has obviously lapsed after the period of limitation stipulated by section 6 of the said Act. At any rate, the said notification cannot survive this length of time. Nobody has a case that an award has been passed in the matter. At present, the Land acquisition Act, 3 W.P.(C).No.15641 of 2014 1894 has been repealed with the coming into force of Act 30 of 2013. For the above reason, unless fresh proceedings are initiated, no restriction could be placed on the petitioner's ownership rights. Ext.P1 has already been set aside by Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, 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.