High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of

Town Planner, District Town Planning Officer, Nagampadam, Kottayam District vs Joseph Jacob, Deepak Jacob Joseph, Pradeep James Joseph, Kottayam Municipality & Secretary, Kottayam Municipality

Case / Petition Number:WA NO. 179 OF 2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhamed Mustaque
  • Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date
2023-02-09
Court Decision / Holding
This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. The Court holds that once a purchase notice is issued and the authority fails to act within the time prescribed by Section 67, the landowner’s right crystallizes to use the land in accordance with law, and the requirement of awaiting final variation cannot be read as an absolute bar. The local authority is directed to intimate the Chief Town Planner about any applications received from the writ petitioner and proceed to consider building permit applications, if any, without awaiting final approval of variation by the Chief Town Planner as contemplated under the statute. The Chief Town Planner may note the variation in the Master Plan or DTP Scheme. Applications for building permits must be considered within the statutory period.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Town Planner, District Town Planning Officer, Nagampadam, Kottayam District

Respondents

  • Joseph Jacob
  • Deepak Jacob Joseph
  • Pradeep James Joseph
  • Kottayam Municipality
  • Secretary, Kottayam Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Government Pleader

Counsels for Respondents

  • • V. M. Krishnakumar
  • • K. R. Deepa - Spl. G.P (LSGD)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns the procedure to be followed after issuing a purchase notice under Section 67(2) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, in the context of a Master Plan or Detailed Town Planning Scheme. The Special Government (LSGD) contends that once a landowner issues a purchase notice, acquisition action must wait for variation proceedings to be completed, making variation mandatory. The writ petitioners (respondents in the WA) argue that landowners cannot be indefinitely deprived of their property and that variation proceedings are administrative formalities rather than essential prerequisites for implementing the Master Plan or DTP Scheme. The court analyzes Sections 67(1)–(7), including the proviso to Section 67(7), clarifying timelines: sixty days for local authorities to decide acquisition after a purchase notice; six months for Government action; and the obligation to initiate variation if the authority chooses not to acquire. The judge concludes that once a purchase notice is issued and the authority fails to act within the statutory window, the landowner’s right crystallizes to use the land in accordance with law, and remaining steps are procedural. The WA is disposed of with directions that permit building permits to be pursued without awaiting final variation approval, while requiring due consultation with the Chief Town Planner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Section 67(1)Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Section 67(2)Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Section 67(4)Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Section 67(7)Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Proviso to Section 67(7)Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Section 67(3) (referenced context)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Right of landowner to enjoy property Lawfully, неto be indefinitely deprived of property under a statutory notice
  • Embargo or procedural formalities cannot be a permanent clog on the landowner’s rights; variation of plan is a procedural step, not a substantive bar to use of land once statutory time limits elapse

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant (Town Planner) submits that after a purchase notice under Section 67(2), the local authority must act within the prescribed timelines and that variation of the plan may be mandatory if acquisition is not completed within the two-year window. The argument emphasizes district-level administrative processes and seeks a procedure ensuring that building permits do not wait for final variation approval where statutory timeframes have lapsed, to avoid clogging the landowner’s rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that upon issuance of a purchase notice, the landowner cannot indefinitely hold up development; variation proceedings are administrative formalities intended to align plans with evolving development needs. They argue that the right to acquire relates to public purposes and the Master Plan/DTP Scheme should not be undermined by indefinite delays. The respondents rely on existing statutory provisions to argue for timely variation when acquisitions are not completed, while safeguarding the landowner’s immediate rights.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Padmini v. State of Kerala1999 (3) KLT 465Mentioned OnlyCited in the arguments; the judgment does not indicate an explicit treatment (positive, distinguished, or overruled) of its holdings within the current decision.
District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Other2019 (3) KLT 154Mentioned OnlyCited to support the discussion on statutory timelines and variation-related issues; no explicit endorsement or overruling asserted in the present judgment.
Pradeep Kumar P.B and Others v. Maradu Municipality and Others2022 (2) KLT 523Mentioned OnlyReferenced in the course of the argument; the current decision does not expressly treat its holdings as binding, distinguished, or overruled.

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 Town Planner, District Town Planning Officer, Nagampadam, Kottayam District vs Joseph Jacob, Deepak Jacob Joseph, Pradeep James Joseph, Kottayam Municipality & Secretary, Kottayam Municipality 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944** **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2022 IN WP(C) 9667/2022 OF** ## **HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC:** THE TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 002 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WPC:** - 1 JOSEPH JACOB, S/O JACOB ITTIYAVIRA, PULICKAL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM,, PIN – 686 004 - 2 DEEPAK JACOB JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH JACOB, PULICKAL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 004 - 3 PRADEEP JAMES JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH JACOB, PULICKAL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 004 - 4 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, YMCA ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001 - 5 SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, YMCA ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001 BY ADV V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR K.R DEEPA - SPL. G.P (LSGD) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A. Muhamed Mustaque, J** The simple issue in this appeal is as to the procedure to be followed after issuing a purchase notice under Section 67(2) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (for short “Act”). The learned Special Government (LSGD), after referring to Section 67 of the Act, would submit that a land owner after issuing notice under Section 67(2) of the Act will have to wait till the variation proceedings are concluded under the approved Master Plan or the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (for short DTP Scheme). 2. The clarity of the law is required in regard to the procedure to be followed in this matter. It is appropriate to refer Section 67 of the Act, which reads thus: _**“Obligation to acquire land in certain cases. - (1) Where any land is designated for compulsory acquisition in a Master**_ **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **..3..** _**Plan or Detailed Town Planning Scheme sanctioned under this Act and no acquisition proceedings are initiated for such land under the Land Acquisition Act in force in the State within a period of two years from the date of coming into operation of the Plan, the owner or person affected may serve on the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned, within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed, a notice (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase notice") requiring the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned to purchase the interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act;**_ _**(2) On receipt of any purchase notice under sub-section (1), as soon as possible, but not later than sixty days from the date of receipt of the purchase notice, the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat, as the case may be, through a resolution decide to acquire the land, where the land is designated for compulsory acquisition for the purpose of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat.**_ _**(3) Where the land is designated for compulsory acquisition for the purpose of any Government Department or Quasigovernment Agency, the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat shall forward such notice to the Government.**_ _**(4) In case the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned decides not**_ **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **..4..** _**to acquire the land, it shall initiate variation of the plan suitably in accordance with this Act.**_ _**(5) In case the land acquisition could not be effected within a period of two years from the date of resolution to acquire the land, the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned shall initiate variation of the plan suitably in accordance with this Act.**_ _**(6) On receipt of a purchase notice under sub-section (3), the Government shall in consultation with the Government Department or Quasi-government Agency concerned, not later than six months from the date of receipt of the purchase notice, confirm the purchase notice. In any other case. Government may require the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned to vary the plan suitably in accordance with this Act;**_ _**Provided that in case the land acquisition could not be effected within a period of two years from the date of confirmation of the purchase notice, the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned shall initiate variation of the plan suitably in accordance with this Act under intimation to the Government.**_ _**(7) If no order has been passed by the Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the purchase notice, the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned shall, suo moto initiate variation of the plan suitably in accordance with this Act:**_ **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **..5..** _**Provided that where variation proceedings of the Plan are initiated under this section, the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat or Village Panchayat concerned shall, in consultation with the Chief Town Planner, take suitable decision on any application for land development permit received under section 64.”**_ 3. Section 67(2) of the Act states that a purchase notice has to be issued by a land owner in respect of a land which has been earmarked for acquisition under the approved Master Plan or DTP Scheme so as to meddle with his land, which has been earmarked for public purposes. There are two sets of procedures envisaged under Section 67 of the Act. They are; 1) In respect of acquisition by local authority. 2) Acquisition by the Government or Government Agencies. 4. In respect of the local authorities, the local authority has to act within sixty days after the issuance of purchase notice for compulsorily acquiring the land for the purpose ## **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of the local authority. (see Section 67(2) of the Act). 5. In respect of the Government acquisition, the Government will have to act within six months for acquisition of the land for Government purposes. (see Section 67(7) of the Act). 6. The learned Special Government, placing reliance on Section 67(4) and proviso to Section 67(7) of the Act, would argue that the variation of the plan is mandatory if no action is taken for acquiring the land within the period of purchase notice. This is the question to be decided in this appeal. 7. _Per contra_ , the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, who are the party respondents in this appeal, submits that the property owner cannot be indefinitely deprived of enjoying his property in accordance with law and he cannot be asked to wait **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **==> picture [37 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** indefinitely to complete the formalities relating to the variation of the Plan. It is submitted that the variations are the formalities for internal purpose of the administration and not to sustain any objectives of the Master Plan or the DTP Scheme. 8. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments in _**Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465], District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Other [2019 (3) KLT 154]**_ and _**Pradeep Kumar P.B and Others v. Maradu Municipality and Others [2022 (2) KLT 523].**_ 9. On assimilation of the various provisions under Section 67 of the Act, it can be observed that once a purchase notice is issued and the authority is failed to act within the time as stipulated under the Statute, the right is crystalised on the land owner to use the land for any purpose in accordance with law and he is ## **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** not bound by the approved Master Plan or DTP Scheme. It is true that the formalities have to be complied as regards to the variation. That is a procedure to be followed for logical conclusion for the public records. That cannot prevent a land owner from utilising his land in accordance with law. The procedure to be followed cannot be considered as a clog on the right of the land owner, consequent upon not acting on the purchase notice. 10. The proviso to Section 67 of the Act stipulates the local authority to act upon the applications for building permits etc. in consultation with the Chief Town Planner. This is only to ensure that Chief Town Planner is put on notice in regard, not acquiring the land which was proposed to be acquired in the Master Plan or DTP Scheme. That itself is not an embargo for the local authority in acting upon the building permit application in accordance with law. ## **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 11. It is also to be noted that the consultation referred to in proviso to Section 67 of the Act cannot be treated as concurrence of Chief Town Planner for granting development permit. The embargo on the land would stand automatically released from the approved Master Plan or the DTP Scheme after the lapse of period mentioned in the purchase notice. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the rest of the matters are only a formality to be completed for the purpose of the record of the administration of the public authorities. 13. The Chief Town Planner is free to note this variation in the approved Plan in the Master Plan or the DTP Scheme as the case may be. The local authority shall intimate the Chief Town Planner about the applications received, if any, from the writ petitioner and proceed for consideration of the building permit, if any, ## **WA NO. 179 OF 2023** **==> picture [44 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** filed without awaiting the final approval of variation by the Chief Town Planner as contemplated under the statutory provision. Local authority shall consider the application for building permit within the period granted under the Statute. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE** **PR**