P K HASHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P2 order of the Corporation rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit is under challenge. The main reason stated in Ext.P2 is that as per the approved Town Planning Scheme, the area is earmarked for road development. Mr.A.V.M.Salahuddeen, counsel for the petitioner would submit that currently there is no valid scheme for road development as stated in Ext.P2 and that at any rate no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated so far for the said purpose. Counsel would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 11 SCC 222] and also to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465).

(2.) Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that the reasons for denial of permit are clearly stated in para.3 of the statement dated 17.2.2007. Mr.M.K.Aboobacker, Standing Counsel for the Calicut Development Authority would submit that all the reasons mentioned in Ext.P2 are good reasons.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jethmalani's case and by the Division Bench of this Court in Padmini's case, I am of the view that in view of the conceded position that no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been initiated for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner's property or for that matter anybody else's property for the road development contemplated by the Town Planning Scheme, there is no justification for freezing the petitioner's property in this manner indefinitely. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand disposed of with the following directions:-