CORPORATION OF THRISSUR Vs. KUNJILAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent has come up in appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The judgment was passed on the basis of the Writ Petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. It was their complaint that when they applied for building permit for construction of a multi - storied residential complex in their property the same was rejected by the Corporation stating that the proposed construction falls within the area earmarked for paddy zone under the approved Master Plan, Thrissur and the same is prohibited.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, after considering the issue involved in the matter, relying upon the decisions reported in Raju S. Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2005 (11) SCC 222 , Nasarv. Malappuram Municiplaity 2009 (3) KLT 92 , Padmini v. State of Kerala, 1999 (3) KLT 465 and Gopalakrishnan T. V. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2011 (3) KLT 317 = 2011 (3) KHC 162 (DB), held that if an areas earmarked as residential zone and large number of constructions for commercial purposes were permitted the master plan requires to be modified. Similarly, if an area is earmarked in a master plan as paddy zone or paddy field and if constructions are permitted, to be carried out in the said area for the last more than 20 years, it is not the rule of law that the petitioner should not be permitted to carry out any construction.

(3.) Admittedly, in this case, the master plan which is brought to the notice of the Court was published somewhere in 1985 and no steps have been taken by the Corporation to implement the said master plan. For that reason it is not open for the Corporation to reject any building permit. As already held by the learned Single Judge, if the Corporation has to implement the said master plan, it is open for them to acquire such land involved in the master plan and then retain it or maintain the same in accordance with the said plan. After taking note of the aforesaid matters, we do not think that there is any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the said judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.