SHAHEENA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P10, as per which, their application for building permit for making construction in a property of less than 3 cents has been rejected, saying that the petitioners have not left sufficient setback required for the purpose of widening the road in front of it, as per the provisions of the Master Plan applicable to the respondent-Municipality. They assert that the Master Plan in question of Aluva Municipality has not been operated at all by the said Municipality for the last several decades and that none of the constructions made in the said locality have left the setback now required of them. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P10 be set aside.

(2.) In response, the learned Standing Counsel for Aluva Municipality submits that as long as the Master Plan provides for widening of the road in question, the petitioners will be obligated to leave sufficient setback for this purpose and therefore, that Ext.P10 has been issued without fault. He, therefore, prays that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

(3.) When I consider the afore submissions, it is ineluctable that the issues like this have already gained the attention of this Court and that judgments have been delivered in District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others [2019(3)KHC 673] and Regional Town Planner and Another v. Muhammed Rasheed and Others [2019(3)KHC 987] wherein it has been declared that in such cases, the owner of properties have a right to make an application under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act,2016 and that if the Municipality, thereafter, do not accede to the same, then the owner's application for building permit will have to be considered de hors the stipulations in the Master Plan. I am sure that the petitioners herein also deserve such opportunity in this Writ Petition.