IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM [CASE NUMBER] 1. G.SUNIL,SAROJINI NIVAS,PUNNATHANATU Petitioner 2. RAJALAKSHMI, SAROJINI NIVAS, Vs 1. VILAPPIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED Respondent 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. The Hon'ble MR. Justice [ENTITY] Dated :10/12/2009 O R D E R [ENTITY], J [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT
The petitioners jointly own a parcel of land, 7.40 Ares in extent situated in [CASE NUMBER] of Vilappil Village. They applied to the Vilappil Grama Panchayat for a building permit to put up a residential building therein. The said application was rejected by Ext.P4 order on the ground that there is a proposal to acquire the land situated in [CASE NUMBER] for the purpose of a Primary Health Centre. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order by filing [CASE NUMBER]. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 14.12.2007, this Court held that as no notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been issued, the Panchayat should reconsider the application for grant of building permit and issue a permit if the application is otherwise in order, on the petitioners filing an affidavit before the Secretary of the Vilappil Grama Panchayat undertaking that in the event of a notification being issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT] within one year from 14.12.2007 the petitioners will not claim [CASE NUMBER] compensation for the building put up by them on the basis of the permit.
2. The petitioners did not file such an affidavit and therefore, the application for permit was not reconsidered and orders passed. Thereafter the petitioners submitted another application, Ext.P7, which was received by the Secretary of the Vilappil Grama Panchayat. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay on the part of the respondents in processing and disposing of the said application. The petitioners contend that though they did not file an affidvit as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, as the period of one year stipulated in Ext.P5 judgment has expired, and as no notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been issued, till date the first respondent is bound to consider Ext.P7 application submitted by them on 23.7.2009 and to take a decision thereon.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Panchayat submits that till date no notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been issued in respect of the land situated in [CASE NUMBER] of Vilappil village. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such being the situation, in the light of the [CASE NUMBER] law laid down by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and by the Apex Court in Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005 11 SCC
222), the first respondent will necessarily have to consider the petitioners' application and pass orders thereon in accordance with law.
In the light of the admitted fact that as on date, no notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been issued in respect of the petitioners' lands, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent Panchayat to consider the application for the building permit submitted by the petitioners on 23.7.2009 and to pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat. It is clarified that if within the said period of one month no notification under [SECTION] of the Act is issued, the petitioners' application for building permit shall not be rejected on the sole ground that there is a proposal to acquire their land.
[ENTITY], Judge mrcs