UMMATHUR ZAINABA Vs. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the rejection of an application for building permit as per Ext.P4 order that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 15 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 421/12 of Malappuram Village. She filed an application for constructing a residential building in the property. It is that application which was rejected as per Ext.P4 assigning the reason that the land in question abuts the National Highway and that there is a proposal to widen the same. It is challenged on the ground that in the light of the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala : (1999 (3) KLT 465) an application for building permit could not have been and should not have been rejected assigning such a reason. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court in Corporation of Thrissur v. Kunhilakutty : (2014 (1) KLT 188) restated the same and held that a mere proposal for acquisition for widening a road cannot be a reason for rejecting an application for building permit, it is contended.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.