High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-09-17Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

Sajith Babu C. v. Thalassery Municipality and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 25574/2007 (T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
Judgment Date: 2007-09-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Petition disposed of with directions: The petitioner must file an affidavit stating that if the Government issues a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within one year, he will not seek compensation for the structures. The Municipality shall pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 within one month of filing the affidavit, if the plan is otherwise in order; a permit should be granted. Even after one year, it remains open to the Municipality to acquire the land for a genuine public purpose, but the petitioner will be entitled to compensation for the land and improvements built under the permit. The existence of the master plan and any future acquisition cannot by itself bar the grant of a permit for construction, provided the conditions are met.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajith Babu C.

Respondents

Thalassery Municipality, represented by its Secretary
The Secretary, Thalassery Municipality
The Municipal Engineer, Thalassery, Thalassery Municipality
The Town Planning Officer, Thalassery Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M. Sasindran
• adv.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. I.V. Pramod
• Standing Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Sajith Babu C. challenges Ext.P2, a rejection of his plan to construct a residential building on the ground that the site lies in a Commercial Zone per the master plan and Ext.P3, the Government-sanctioned development plan under the Madras Town Planning Act. The master plan package has not been acted upon or implemented for over two decades, and there has been no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner contends Ext.P2 was issued by the Municipal Engineer, not by the Municipal Secretary whose authority governs approvals/rejections; cites Padmini v. State of Kerala and other cases where this Court has intervened against similar rejections. The respondents maintain that the zoning under the master plan and the development plan governs, and the Government has sanctioned a development plan; exemptions are not available. The judgment relies on Padmini’s principles, Francis v. Chalakudy Municipality, and Raju Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra to grant relief. The court notes that no acquisition notification has been issued to-date, and that for more than 20 years the master plan has remained inert; thus it rules in petitioner’s favor, directing a fresh consideration of Ext.P1 with conditions. The decision emphasizes that master plan alone cannot bar construction when public acquisition may occur in the future with compensation for land and structures.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the ConstitutionSection 14(3) of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Ext.P2’s rejection, based on a master plan showing the area as commercial, is untenable given the master plan has not been acted upon for two decades and no Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act has been issued. The Municipal Secretary is the proper authority to grant/reject plans, not the Municipal Engineer. Relying on Padmini v. State of Kerala and related judgments, the petitioner contends that past orders in similar cases indicate judicial intervention is warranted to permit construction where the master plan is not presently operative; the area is presently residential, making the Ext.P2 rejection disproportionate. The petitioner seeks permission to construct with safeguards; urges that a judgment ordering fresh consideration be issued, with conditions to preserve public interest while acknowledging potential future acquisition.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the zoning in Ext.P2 aligns with the master plan and Ext.P3 development plan; since a development plan has been sanctioned, the municipal authorities have a duty to enforce zoning and reject plans that contravene the master plan. They argue that exemptions are not permissible and that the Government’s notification validates the commercial zoning. They rely on Sayeesh Kumar’s view, arguing that decades of non-implementation cannot automatically override zoning principles. They emphasize the authority conferred on the Municipal Engineer and the need to protect public interest, including possible future acquisition under due process.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Padmini v. State of Kerala	1999 (3) KLT 465	Positive	Cited as authority supporting judicial intervention in similar zoning/plan-related disputes; used to justify relief where master plan remains unimplemented.
Francis v. Chalakudy Municipality	1999 (3) KLT 560	Positive	Full Bench decision cited for its guiding principles favoring relief where the development framework is not actively impeded by administrative inaction.
Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others	(2005) 11 SCC 222	Positive	Supreme Court guidance supporting the petitioner’s relief in the context of development plans and property rights.
Sayeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala	2005(4) KLT 1027	Distinguished	Cited by petitioner to argue against strict master-plan-based rejection; court distinguishes due to long non-implementation of the plan.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sajith Babu C. v. Thalassery Municipality and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE** **MONDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 26TH BHADRA 1929** ## **WP(C).No. 25574 of 2007(T)** **-------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------------** **SAJITH BABU C., CHACKOLANGARA HOUSE, KODIYERI, PARAL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------** **1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY.** **3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, THALASSERY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY.** ## **4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO: 25574/2007** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1. COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN.** **EXT.P1A. COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. E5/BA.157/07-08. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DT. 29/11/83. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16/1/2006 IN WPC NO. 33317/05. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 28206/2006.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL.** True copy tga ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.** ------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 25574 OF 2007 ----------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of September, 2007 ## **JUDGMENT** There seems to be some genuineness in the grievance which is voiced by the petitioner in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Respondents 1 to 3 are the Thalassery Municipality, Secretary Thalassery Municipality and the Municipal Engineer, Thalassery. The 4[th] respondent is the Town Planning Officer, Thalassery Municipality. Under challenge is Ext.P2 order of the Municipality by which Ext.P1 plan submitted by the petitioner for permission to construct a residential building in the property owned by him was rejected. The reason for rejection is that the site over which the building is proposed to be constructed is shown as a Commercial Zone as per the master plan. Ext.P3 is the Government Order on the basis of which a development plan has been sanctioned for Thalassery Town under Section 14(3) of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920. The petitioner submits that till this moment there has been no proposal for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner’s property and no notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued so far. Petitioner further points out that though a development plan was sanctioned for the Thalassery Town as per the master plan, the same WPC No.25574 of 2007 2 has not been acted upon and no industry has so far been set up pursuant to the plan. The area is a pucca residential area without even a single commercial or industrial establishment for setting up of any commercial units in future. Ext.P3 has become redundant and oppressive. Petitioner mentions names of several persons in the Municipal area who have been issued with permits notwithstanding the existence of the master plan which is referred to in Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 intimation, in so far as the same is issued by the Municipal Engineer, is without jurisdiction since the power to approve and reject plans are with the Municipal Secretary only. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Padmini v. State of Kerala** [1999 (3) KLT 465]. Petitioner points out that against similar rejection orders the concerned parties preferred writ appeals before this court and this court interfered by passing judgments, Exts.P4 and P5. 2. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.I.V.Pramod, Standing Counsel for the Thalassery Municipality. Mr.Sasindran would draw my attention to my own judgment in WP(C) No.22259 of 2006 apart from relying on the judgments in WP(C) No.3317 of 2005 and WP(C) No.28206 of 2006(which is another WPC No.25574 of 2007 3 judgment authored by myself). 3. Having regard to the submissions addressed at the Bar and the principles emerging from the Division Bench decision in **Padmini** 's case (supra), Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Francis v. Chalakudy Municipality** [1999 (3) KLT 560] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others** [(2005) 11 SCC 222] case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for relief. Till this moment no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated by the local authority for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner’s property. Of course Sri.I.V.Pramod did invite my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Sayeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala** (2005(4) KLT 1027) and submit that as per the master plan approved by the Government vide notification, the area in question is a commercial area and even the Government has not power to grant exemption. But, according to me, in this case where for the past more than 20 decades the master plan has not been implemented, as regards the commercial development proposed therein, it is not just or proper to insist that valuable residential property belonging to the petitioner should remain idle. The Writ Petition accordingly will stand disposed of issuing the WPC No.25574 of 2007 4 ## following directions: The petitioner shall submit undertaking in the form of an affidavit in which he will state that in case the Municipality comes out with a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring any portion of the plot on which the building is proposed to be constructed within one year from today, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the constructions. The Municipality is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 plan submitted by the petitioner, once affidavit as directed above is filed by the petitioner. Permit should be granted if the plan is otherwise in order within one month of petitioner submitting affidavit as directed above. The existence of the master plan and proposal to acquire the land at some future time shall not be a ground for rejection of the plan. It is however, clarified that even after the period of one year mentioned herein above it will be open to the Municipality to acquire the petitioner’s property for any genuine public purpose. But under such an event the petitioner will be entitled for compensation not only for the land, but also for the constructions put up by him on the strength of the permit to be issued to him pursuant to this judgment. ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE** btt WPC No.25574 of 2007 5 WPC No.25574 of 2007 6