JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 6.39 Ares of land situated within the territorial limits of the 1 st respondent-Municipality. He proposes to construct a commercial building on the said property, and for that purpose, he submitted an application for a building permit. However, by Ext.P1 letter, the Municipality rejected the application for the reason that the property is reserved for future development of the Ottappalam bus stand as per the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (for brevity, ‘Scheme’) finalised in 2022. The Scheme was introduced and finalised two years ago. Many of the proposals in the Scheme require compulsory land acquisition of private properties. However, the Municipality has not taken any steps to acquire private properties, and none of the proposals contained in the Scheme has materialised till date. The Scheme gets legal sanctity under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (in short, ‘Act’). Under Section 67 of the Act, if the Municipality does not acquire the properties covered under the Scheme or the Master Plan within two years from the date of introduction of the Scheme/Master Plan, the Municipality cannot deter land owners from putting their land to legitimate use. In the present case, the Master plan was introduced in October 2022; therefore, two years have lapsed as on 2024. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 purchase notice under Section 67 of the Act to the Municipality on 11.11.2024, as evidenced by Ext.P2(a) receipt. Despite the lapse of 60 days, the respondents have failed to initiate land acquisition proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the building permit under Section 67 and the law laid down by this Court in Thalassery Municipality v. Puthalath Balakrishnan ( 2019 (3) KLT 154 ) and Abul Hakeem v. Manjeri Municipality and Another ( 2018 (1) KLT 1026 ). In a case of a similar nature, by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court has directed the respondents therein to issue a building permit to the petitioner in the said case. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar judgment. Hence, the writ petition. 2. In their counter affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 contend that the Government of Kerala approved the Master plan for the Municipality on 13.10.2022, wherein Survey No.105. i.e., the property belonging to the petitioner, stands earmarked for the expansion of the bus stand. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar judgment. Hence, the writ petition. 2. In their counter affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 contend that the Government of Kerala approved the Master plan for the Municipality on 13.10.2022, wherein Survey No.105. i.e., the property belonging to the petitioner, stands earmarked for the expansion of the bus stand. Since the Scheme is in force, the Municipality is bound by the Town Planning Scheme. The provisions of the Act prevail over the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. The Municipality cannot do any act in violation of the Act. The Town Planning Scheme was published after considering the objections raised by the aggrieved persons. The Municipality lacks the authority to make any modifications to the scheme. Granting permission to construct buildings against the Master plan will render the development of the Municipality futile. The purchase notice issued by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Municipal Council. The time period fixed in Section 67 (1) of the Act is only directory and not mandatory; and the private interest of the petitioner must give way to the larger public interest. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 3. Heard, Sri.Haroon Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vinod Madhavan, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Smt. K.R. Deepa, the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Master plan of the Municipality was introduced in 2022, and the two-year statutory period lapsed in 2024. Yet, the petitioner's property has not been acquired for the construction of the bus stand. It was against this backdrop that the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 purchase notice requesting that the Municipality to purchase his property. Even after the lapse of 60 days, the Municipality has not purchased the property. Therefore, Section 67 of the Act has come into operation, and the petitioner is entitled to a building permit. He relied on the precedents of this Court in District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others ( 2019 (3) KHC 673 ), Pradeep Kumar P.B. and Others v. Maradu Municipality and Others ( 2022(3) KHC 253 ), Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 KHC 619) and District Town Planner, Thrissur v. Joby M.C. and Others ( 2020 (6) KHC 455 ), in support of his submissions. 5. 5. On the contrary, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the writ petition. He argued that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section 67 of the Act. He drew the attention of this Court to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Others ( 2013 KHC 4163 ) to buttress his contention that no violation of zonal and regulation of laws can be permitted; Nasiruddin and Others v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003 KHC 864), Bright C. v. District Collector and Others (2020 KHC 6633) and State of U.P. and Others v. Pista Devi and Others (1986 KHC 672) to drive home the contention that the word ‘shall’ used in Section 67 of the Act is only directory and not mandatory, and Priyanka Estates International Private Ltd and Others v. State of Assam and Others (2010 KHC 6061) to canvass the position that an individual has a right, including a fundamental right, only within a reasonable limit, and if the said right encroaches on public right leading to public inconvenience, it has to be curtailed to that extent. 6. The fact remains that the petitioner’s application for a building permit has been rejected solely on the ground that his property stands set apart for the expansion of the Ottappalam bus stand under the 2022 Scheme. The respondents have neither acquired the petitioner's property within two years of the Scheme coming into force nor have they taken a decision on the Ext.P2 purchase notice even after 60 days. 7. In light of the above undisputed facts and for the proper adjudication of the dispute, it is essential to refer to Section 67 of the Act, which reads as follows: “67. Obligation to acquire land in certain cases. 7. In light of the above undisputed facts and for the proper adjudication of the dispute, it is essential to refer to Section 67 of the Act, which reads as follows: “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 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…………..” 8. While construing Section 67 of the Act, in a case of identical nature, a Division Bench of this Court in District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others (supra) has held as follows: "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 S 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 S.67 of the Act, 2016 are intended to balance the conflicting rights of the State and the private individual. Accordingly, the procedure under S 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 S.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 Art.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” *** *** *** 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. 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 S.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. *** *** *** 14. 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. *** *** *** 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. 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." 9. The above legal position was reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in Pradeep Kumar P.B. and Others v. Maradu Municipality and Others (supra), wherein the Division Bench, after considering the legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2005 KHC 1983], and this Court in Vinod's case (supra) and District Town Planner, Thrissur v. Joby M.C. and Others (supra), has held that once the modality contained under Section 67 of the Act is completed, the Secretary of the Municipality is obliged to consider the application for building permit and issue the same in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. 10. In Padmini v. State of Kerala (supra), a Division Bench of this Court while considering an application for building permit in the context of a town planning scheme has held that the rejection of permission to construct a building would tantamount to deprivation of the property of the parties without the authority of law and in violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. 11. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in Esha Ekta Apartments Co- operative Housing Society Limited and Others (supra) only lays down the general proposition that the illegal construction shall not be regularised by exercising the equitable jurisdiction of the Courts. 11. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in Esha Ekta Apartments Co- operative Housing Society Limited and Others (supra) only lays down the general proposition that the illegal construction shall not be regularised by exercising the equitable jurisdiction of the Courts. Similarly, the case laws in Nasiruddin and Others and Bright C’s case (supra) are not in the context of Section 67 of the Act. 12. I disagree with the contention that Section 67 of the Act is only directory and not mandatory in light of the explicit exposition of law by the Division Benches of this Court in the District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others (supra) and Pradeep Kumar P.B. and Others v. Maradu Municipality and Others (supra) on Section 67 of the Act. There cannot be a different interpretation of the above question of law. Hence, I am of the definite view that, particularly as the respondents have failed to purchase the petitioner's property even after the lapse of 60 days after receiving the purchase notice, the petitioner's indefeasible right to obtain a building permit has accrued. The same cannot be frustrated by the respondents on the ground of anticipated development. Therefore, I accept the contention of the petitioner and hold that he is entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.P1 letter, and by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for building permit, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.