JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.10 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.445/4-2 in Njarakkal Village, situated within the territorial limits of the 2 nd respondent-Panchayat. The petitioner has submitted an application for building permit along with necessary plan to construct a new building in the said property. However, by Ext.P4 letter, the 3 rd respondent rejected the application on the ground that there is a proposal to widen the Vypin-Pallipuram State Highway based on the Cochin Structural Plan. The plan is four decades old and has become obsolete. In cases of identical nature, by Exts.P5 to P8 judgments, this Court has held that the plan has become obsolete. Therefore, Ext.P4 letter may be quashed and the 3 rd respondent may be directed to issue the building permit. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, it is contended that the petitioner’s application for building permit was rejected, since the proposed building is adjacent to the proposed Vypin-Pallipuram State Highway as per the Cochin City Structural Development Plan. Therefore, the petitioner has to leave a setback of 16.5 metres from the middle of the road, for which there is no space. Hence, Ext.P4 letter was issued. 3. The petitioner has produced Exts.P9 and P10 resolutions passed by the 2 nd respondent, wherein they have taken decision to reject the petitioner’s proposal due to the freezing of the properties in the area and remove the restrictions once the freezing is lifted. 4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioner had submitted a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (‘Act’, in short). But, said purchase notice was rejected by the 3 rd respondent. 6. It is not in dispute that by Exts.P5 to P8 judgments, this Court has permitted construction of buildings in the properties in the adjacent Panchayats, on the ground that the Cochin Structural Plan has become obsolete, as it was promulgated about 35 years back. Even though the State had challenged one of the judgments in W.A. No.1448/2025, the same was dismissed. 7. Even though the State had challenged one of the judgments in W.A. No.1448/2025, the same was dismissed. 7. It is also undisputed that the Cochin Structural Plan has not been revised in the outskirts of the Kochi City. 8. In addition to the above, it is conceded that the petitioner had submitted a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Act, requesting the 2 nd respondent to purchase the petitioner’s property as it is reserved for the purpose for future road expansion. But, the said purchase notice has been rejected by the 2 nd respondent. 9. In the above context it is necessary 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…………..” 10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 11. 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. 12. 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. In light of the fact that Exts.P5 to P8 judgments have been passed in identical matters and further that the 2 nd respondent has failed to purchase the petitioner’s property despite serving a notice under Section 67 (1) of the Act, I satisfied that the writ petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.P4 letter and by directing 3 rd respondent to reconsider 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.