JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. The Thalassery Municipality and their functionaries have preferred these Writ Appeals. They are represented by their learned Standing Counsel, Sri.I.V.Pramod. The respondents-writ petitioners are represented respectively by S/Sri.K. Abdul Jawad, R.Surendran, T.M.Abdul Latheef, M.Sasindran, Deepak Raj, and Rajesh V. Nair, the learned counsel. The learned Senior Government Pleaders S/Sri.Tek Chand and Surin George Ipe represent the State authorities. 2. The issues are common in these Appeals and the matters are heard analogously. Therefore the following judgment will dispose of all the Appeals. For the sake of convenience, the primary facts are extracted from the W.A.No.1154/2019. 3. The writ petitioner, as the owner of land within the limits of Thalassery Municipality, applied for building permit to construct shops and office building. The authority in the Local Self Government Department of the Thalassery Municipality, rejected the application, on the ground that the building site is proposed for construction of a road in the Town Development Plan for the Thalassery Town. Aggrieved by the said decision, the land owner approached this Court. Similar decision(s) were taken to reject the other applications for building permit on the ground that the building site was in an area that is earmarked in the District Town Planning (DTP) for specific projects like Road widening, to be undertaken at a future date. The aggrieved land owners then filed individual Writ Petitions. 4. The contention of the writ petitioners was essentially that, although the proposals for future development were contained in the DTP Scheme prepared under the erstwhile Town and Country Planning Acts, and the said schemes continued to be in force by virtue of the saving provision in Section-113 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, for short the Act, 2016, the Local Authorities were obliged to acquire the lands in question within the period envisaged in Section 67. If they did not, they would be obliged to seek a variation of the DTP Scheme so as to exclude the proposal for future development and consider the applications for building permit, without taking note of the development proposal. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the Municipal authorities was that when the property of the writ petitioner is proposed in the development plan for the Thalassery Town, the development and construction on those lands would directly impact the future development plan for the Town. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the Municipal authorities was that when the property of the writ petitioner is proposed in the development plan for the Thalassery Town, the development and construction on those lands would directly impact the future development plan for the Town. The Municipality pleaded that the development plan was prepared through due process and there is no challenge to the prepared plan for the Thalassery Township and therefore, intervention with the plan to be executed in future, at the instance of an individual property owner would not be justified in public interest. 6. The impugned judgments indicate that the learned Judge had adverted to the rival contentions and also examined the relevant provisions of the Act, 2016. The Court next found that the Municipality is yet to launch any scheme, notwithstanding the fact that by virtue of sub-section(2) of Section 113 of the Act, 2016, the existing draft Plan or Town Planning Schemes are to be treated as a Scheme or Plan, under the Act, 2016. It was then held that the Scheme of 1983 is deemed to be existing, but the Municipality has failed to take any action to acquire the land as mandated by the Act, 2016. On this finding, the Writ Petitions were decided in favour of the building permit applicants. However, balancing the interest of the individual and the Municipality, the Court under the impugned judgments directed the Municipality to, either acquire the land within three months or consider the building permit-applications, dehors the findings recorded in the rejection-decision. 7. Such judgments in the Writ Petitions are challenged in these Appeals. The learned counsel, Sri.I.V.Pramod for the Thalassery Municipality, refers to Section 67 of the Act, 2016, to point out that the property owners in the W.A.Nos.813/2019 [WP(C) No.27237/2018], 986/2019 [WP(C) No.10527/2018], 1073/2019 [WP(C) No.38855/2018], 1154/2019 [WP(C) No.1918/2018], 1318/2019 [WP(C) No.35882/2018], 1847/2018 [WP(C) No.19970/2016] and 1332/2015 [WP(C) No.21602/2014], who claim to be affected by the Town Planning Scheme, are yet to serve any purchase-notice, under Section 67(1) of the Act, 2016, requiring the Municipal authorities to purchase the interest in their land. The counsel argues that only when such demand is made by the affected property owner, the Municipality is required to decide to either acquire the land within 60 days of receipt of the purchase-notice or initiate suitable variation of the Town Planning Scheme. The counsel argues that only when such demand is made by the affected property owner, the Municipality is required to decide to either acquire the land within 60 days of receipt of the purchase-notice or initiate suitable variation of the Town Planning Scheme. Since few land owners have not issued any purchase notice, the appellants would argue that the direction given by the learned Judge to either acquire the property within three months or grant the building permit, was not merited in the facts. 8. In their turn, the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners would argue that since the Municipal authorities have failed to launch any Scheme under the Act, 2016 and do not have the fund to carry out any town development activities in the Thalassery Municipality, the property owners cannot be compelled to keep their land undeveloped and thereby restrict their right to utilise their prime assets, for permitted usage. 9. A reading of the provisions of the Act, 2016 and the Municipality/Panchayat Building Rules indicates that the DTP Schemes prepared under the Act, 2016 are to have overriding effect over the provisions of the Building Rules. Accordingly, the procedure under Section 67 has to be followed in case the project envisaged under the DTP Scheme involves acquisition of land by the Local Authorities as a pre-requisite for implementing the proposal. 10. The provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 2016 are intended to balance the conflicting rights of the State and the private individual. While the State has the right to reserve lands for development proposals in public interest, the said right cannot be exercised in a manner designed to frustrate the Constitutional rights of the private individual under Article 300A, to deal with his property in the manner he chooses. A balance is therefore struck by directing the State to take affirmative action for implementing the proposal within a specified time-frame, failing which, the private individual is to be given the unfettered freedom to use his land for other permissible purposes. 11. For a fruitful discussion, Section 67 of the Act, 2016 is extracted:- “67. A balance is therefore struck by directing the State to take affirmative action for implementing the proposal within a specified time-frame, failing which, the private individual is to be given the unfettered freedom to use his land for other permissible purposes. 11. For a fruitful discussion, Section 67 of the Act, 2016 is extracted:- “67. Obligation to acquire land in certain cases -(1) Where any land is designated for compulsory acquisition in a Master 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 subsection (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 Quasi-government 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 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. (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 motu initiate variation of the plan suitably in accordance with this Act: 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 and development permit received under section 64.” 12. The above provision in the Act, 2016 would imply that where any land is designated for compulsory acquisition in the Town Planning Scheme but no acquisition proceedings are initiated within a period of two years from the date of coming into operation of the Plan, the owner or the affected person may serve a purchase notice, requiring the authority to purchase the interest in the land. If any such purchase notice is served, within 60 days from the date of receipt, the authority is statutorily required to decide on acquisition of the property. If the land is designated for any Government Department or other authorities, the information on the receipt of purchase notice is to be forwarded to the said authority. If any such purchase notice is served, within 60 days from the date of receipt, the authority is statutorily required to decide on acquisition of the property. If the land is designated for any Government Department or other authorities, the information on the receipt of purchase notice is to be forwarded to the said authority. In case decision is taken by the concerned authority not to acquire the land, variation of the development plan should be made. Even otherwise, when the land acquisition could not be effected within two years from the date of resolution to acquire the land, the authorities are required under sub-section(5) of Section 67 of the Act, to initiate suitable variation of the Plan. As can be seen, the statutory consequences for failure of the authority to acquire the land notified under the Town Planning Scheme is clearly delineated. Thus the Act, 2016 itself suggests that the property owner cannot be indefinitely deprived of his right to enjoy the property, without finality on the acquisition of the land, earmarked under the DTP Scheme. 13. On the above enactment and its application, we may benefit by referring to the 24.02.2016 judgment in the W.A.No.109 of 2015 (The District Town Planner & anr. v. Antony Joseph & others) where, the Court pronounced as under:- "31. In cases where acquisition of land is required for the purpose of utilizing the said land for a public purpose in terms with a Master Plan or DTP Scheme, which apparently restricts the right of the owners, steps in that regard has to be taken within a time limit. 32. .................................................... A bare reading of Section 67 indicates that the owner of the property which is designated for compulsory acquisition is entitled to issue a notice referred as 'purchase notice' requiring the Municipality to purchase the interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. Thereafter, in terms of sub section (2), the Municipality will have to take a decision to acquire the land. If the decision is not to acquire the land, the Municipality can initiate steps to vary the plan suitably in accordance with the Ordinance. If the land acquisition could not be effected within a period of two years from the date of resolution to acquire the land, then also the Municipality has to initiate variation of the plan in accordance with the Ordinance. 33. If the land acquisition could not be effected within a period of two years from the date of resolution to acquire the land, then also the Municipality has to initiate variation of the plan in accordance with the Ordinance. 33. Therefore, it is clear that sufficient provisions have been made under the present enactment for dereserving the property and excluding the same from acquisition if the acquisition is not made within a specified time. Apparently, such issues had not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. It is needless to state that the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Ordinance which was applicable during the relevant time clearly apply to the facts in issue. Such statutory provisions were not considered in the earlier judgments in Padmini (supra) as well as Kalpetta Municipality (supra) nor did this Court consider the scope and effect of Rule 3A of the KMBR. It is also relevant to note that in Raju S.Jethmalani (supra), the owner of the land had sought for dereserving the land from the sanctioned scheme. Therefore, when a DTP Scheme is in force, and certain land is designated for acquisition for common purposes, the remedy available to the land owner is to approach the Municipality or the Government, as the case may be, for dereserving the land in accordance with the statutory provisions. Unless there is compliance with the statutory provisions by which the Municipality may either take a decision to exclude the land from acquisition or to acquire the land within a specified time limit as provided under the statute, it may not be possible for the land owner to seek a building permit ignoring the sanctioned scheme nor will it be possible for the Municipality to grant the permit. ......................................................... ." 14. The implication of the Act, 2016 as explained above appears to be sound and we are in agreement. It would therefore be logical for us to conclude that the respondents-writ petitioners cannot be prevented from lawful enjoyment of their property, merely because, such property is included in the DTP Scheme of the Thalassery Municipality. It does not however mean that the authorities are deprived of their right to acquire the land at a future date, if the same would be needed for the development Scheme of the Town. It does not however mean that the authorities are deprived of their right to acquire the land at a future date, if the same would be needed for the development Scheme of the Town. The only burden in that future event would be, the need to compensate the owner to the extent of development or the construction, made over the property. 15. In the judgment impugned, the learned Judge has directed the Municipality to acquire the land for the development Scheme and if for any reason they are unable to do so within three months, the application for building permit rejected earlier, was directed to be reconsidered. In the scheme of the Act, 2016, such direction, in our view, could not have been issued, in the absence of any purchase notice by the aggrieved property owners in the W.A.Nos.813/2019 [WP(C) No.27237/2018], 986/2019 [WP(C) No.10527/2018], 1073/2019 [WP(C) No.38855/2018], 1154/2019 [WP(C) No.1918/2018], 1318/2019 [WP(C) No.35882/2018], 1847/2018 [WP(C) No.19970/2016] and 1332/2015 [WP(C) No.21602/2014], requiring the authorities to purchase the interest in the land. Therefore, the impugned judgments are set aside, reserving the right of the respondents-writ petitioners to serve purchase notice on the Municipal authorities under sub-section (1)of Section 67 of the Act, 2016. If such purchase-notice is received, the appellant authorities are required to take timely decision in accordance with law, to either acquire the land or initiate appropriate variation in the DTP Scheme. In the W.A.Nos.1958/2016 [WP(C) No.32587/2015] and 1161/2019 [WP(C) No.29602/2018] where purchase notices were actually sent to the Municipality, direction is issued to the Municipality to forthwith consider the applications for building permit, in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. 16. With the above, the Writ Appeals stand disposed of in the manner indicated.