(1.) Having been granted leave, the Secretary to Government of Kerala in Local Self Government Department has filed this petition seeking review of the judgment dated 10.6.2009 in W.P.(C) 16046 of 2009, a Writ Petition disposed of as part of a bunch of matters - Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality, 2009 3 KerLT 92
(2.) The relief sought for in the Writ Petition filed without the Government on the array, was to quash the Malappuram Municipality's decision refusing building permit on the ground that the land in relation to which building permit was sought, fell within an area identified as wet land and restricted, to be for such user in terms of the master plan approved by the Government. It was noticed that in terms of the judgments issued by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala,1999 3 KerLT 465 different judgments were issued by this Court including those placed on record along with the Writ Petition as Exts.P3, P4, P5 etc. The judgment sought to be reviewed was accordingly issued. It is also a matter of record by now, that even the judgment sought to be reviewed has been followed later by this Court in issuing different judgments.
(3.) For one thing, the Municipality is not aggrieved by the judgment sought to be reviewed. It is a Municipality which makes a Scheme for Town Planning and places it to the Government for approval. The Government sanctions that scheme after a preliminary notification and after considering the objections thereof. Thereafter, the scheme becomes operational and obliges the Municipality and the citizens to abide by its terms. The withdrawal of the scheme or a master plan can thereafter be only in terms of the statutory provisions which enjoin that such action can only be with the orders of the Government. The provisions in the Town Planning laws also provide for compensation to persons who have acted in accordance with the scheme and have changed the user of the land to suit the dictate of the scheme; but on withdrawal of the scheme, may suffer on that count.