CHANDRIKA AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the State Government, declining to grant building permit to the petitioner. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 16.5 cents of property comprised in Survey No.4/4A in Thaikkadu Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District, who submitted an application for building permit for the construction of a residential building, before the 3rd respondent, Secretary of the Guruvayur Municipality. The 3rd respondent thereupon, has issued Ext.P1 communication rejecting the said application for the reason that, the property in which the building permit has been applied is covered in the area set apart for park and open space in accordance with the Master Plan. Case of the petitioner is that, the Master Plan is of the year 1976, and till date, no steps have been taken to acquire the land or to implement the above said Master Plan. It is also pointed out that, the very same Municipality has issued building permits to the owners of adjacent plots and many others whose lands also would come well within the area earmarked for the above said Master Plan. That apart, it is submitted that, rejection of the petitioner's application on the basis of an antiquated scheme or Master Plan is arbitrary and illegal. It was being confronted with such a situation, petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15032 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 26.07.2013, directing the State Government to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioner's property to verify the present condition and to pass orders in accordance with law.

(3.) The case projected by the petitioner is that, the State Government, without taking into account the ground realities, have passed Ext.P3 order, stating that the DTP Scheme for Guruvayur Municipality is in force and the property is required for park and open space. The State Government apparently relied upon the report of the Chief Town Planner, who submitted that in view of the direction of this Court in the judgment in O.P.No.8740/1997 dated 07.11.2005, the construction sought for by the petitioner is not permissible.