AMINA Vs. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings, by which an application for building permit submitted by her has been rejected. According to Ext.P3, the petitioner's property is described as paddy field in the Possession Certificate produced by her. The property is also included in the 'mixed zone' as per the D.T.P (Detailed Town Planning) Scheme applicable to the Municipality.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Ext.P4 proceedings of the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna, in which the property of the petitioner has been reported to be unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P3 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

(3.) IT has been held by the apex court in the decision reported in Raju S.Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 11 SCC 222] that mere inclusion of a land in a D.T.P Scheme was not enough to prevent the owner thereof from utilising the same to his best advantage. The inclusion in the scheme should be followed by the initiation of land acquisition proceedings, before the petitioner can be prevented from utilising his property. In view of the above binding dictum, the second reason in Ext.P3 also is unsustainable. In the present case, admittedly no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated.