SHOBA RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Rob Paul to pay Peter' seems to be the attitude of the State Government in acquiring valuable property in the heart of Ernakulam for housing scheme allegedly to ease out the problem of residential accommodation by paying a pittance as compensation and thereafter permitting the allottees and their transferees to set up commercial establishments. I shall refer to the exhibits in W.P (C) No. 10130/2015 filed by the residents of the housing colonies for the sake of convenience since the other writ petitions are an offshoot of the main writ petition challenging the coercive steps taken by the authorities in implementation of the interim orders therein.

(2.) The State Government by Ext.P1 notification accorded sanction for a Detailed Town Planning Scheme ['DTP Scheme' for short] for Elamkulam West under Section 12 (5) of the Town Planning Act, 193 Ext.P2 DTP Scheme accordingly sponsored by the second respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority ['GCDA' for short] inter alia stated as follows:-

(3.) The draft scheme appended to Ext.P2 DTP Scheme is categoric that 'shops and business premises will not be permitted except in areas specified for the same' wherein retail trade could be carried on. Ext.P3 lay out plan prepared and duly approved by the Chief Town Planner clearly depicts the permissible nature of user of the plots under the DTP Scheme. Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of GCDA reflect that only 16 families have been rehabilitated within the scheme area in the process of acquisition. Ext.P4 minutes also reveal that lands have been allotted to Income Tax Department, Post and Telegraph Department etc. and that the Scheme is almost completed. This is in addition to land allotted to the Housing Board and the Cochin Shipyard Staff Co-operative Housing Society of course to remain within the DTP Scheme. Ext.P5 sale deed and similar deeds executed by GCDA in favour of the allottees specify that the land shall not be used except for residential purposes. The scope and ambit of this very Scheme has been dealt with in Philip George v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (2) KLT 116] wherein it is observed as follows:-