MURALICHAND Vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owns 20 cents of land in Sy.Nos.1221/B-1-1, B-1 and B-4 of Thycaud Village. The properties were purchased in the year 2008 as per Ext.P1. The petitioner applied for building permit before the 1st respondent on 10/4/2018. The application was rejected as per Ext.P3 dtd. 29/11/2018 stating that as per the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTP Scheme for short), for the road from Thycaud Women and Children Hospital Junction to Aryasala Junction, the land in which the petitioner intends to make the construction, is one to be acquired for commercial use. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.2912 of 2019. By Ext.P4 judgment dtd. 25/3/2019, this Court directed the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy available under Sec. 509(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rule 160 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. On 22/4/2019, the petitioner issued Ext.P5 notice to respondents 1 and 2 under Sec. 67 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (2016 Act for short) requesting them to purchase his interest in the land and also stating that if the Corporation fails to initiate action for acquisition within 10 days from the receipt of the notice as provided under Sec. 67(2) of the 2016 Act, the petitioner will be entitled to the building permit as sought for. The petitioner had also filed W.A.No.1707 of 2019 against the judgment Ext.P4, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision as provided under Sec. 67 of the 2016 Act and communicate the decision to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The judgment was rendered on 14/11/2019. The petitioner forwarded the judgment to the 2nd respondent on 7/12/2019 as seen from Ext.P7. When action was not forthcoming, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.250 of 2020 before this Court. The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted before this Court that on 16/12/2019, a decision has been taken under Sec. 67 of the 2016 Act and that the same will be communicated to the petitioner. The contempt case was closed recording the above submission, by Ext.P8 judgment dtd. 31/1/2020. The 1st respondent thereafter issued a notice on 31/1/2020 to the petitioner referring to the decision of the Council dtd. 16/12/2019 in which it is stated that the Town Planning Committee of the 1st respondent had considered the request of the petitioner for acquisition of the property and recommended acquisition for future development. It is further stated that the Council had considered the issue and taking note of the fact that hospitals, railway station and bus stand are situated near the property, it was decided that the property can be acquired for the purpose of construction of a rest home, short stay home and pay and park for the benefit of the public. It is also stated that the Superintending Engineer has been entrusted with the duty to initiate acquisition process.

(2.) The counsel for the 1st respondent has filed a statement stating that the Council had decided to acquire the property and a letter had been sent to the District Collector for acquisition of the land after deciding the purchase value, but that no reply has been received from the District Collector and a reminder letter has also been sent for follow up action. The said statement was filed on 30/9/3031.

(3.) Heard Sri P.B.Subramanyan on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Nandakumara Menon, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri P.K.Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, on behalf of the respondents.