IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28723 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABBAS. M, S/O LATE KUNHUMUHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS, MUSLIYARAKATH HOUSE, HAJIYARPALLI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008 ALONG WITH W.P(C) 28743/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 28723 & 28743 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 orders are under challenge in these cases. By these orders, the applications made by the petitioners for building permit have been rejected on the ground that in terms of the master plan, the lands in question are paddy fields. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though a master plan has been prepared, nothing further has been done by the Municipality. It is also his contention that in both cases by Ext.P3 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, permissions have been granted for conversion of the lands in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Counsel also relies on Ext.P4, a common judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.26632/2008 and WP(C) 28723 & 28743 of 2008 2 connected cases, where in identical circumstances, relief has been granted. 4. Having gone through Ext.P4 judgment referred to above, I am satisfied that the facts of these cases are similar to the cases dealt with in that judgment. For that reason also I see no justification to deny the relief sought for in these writ petitions. 5. Therefore the writ petitions will stand disposed of quashing Ext.P2 orders and directing that the Secretary of the Municipality shall reconsider the applications made by the petitioners subject to the following conditions:- That the petitioners shall produce copies of Ext.P3 orders before the Secretary of the Municipality, in which case the Secretary shall inspect the lands in question and if he is satisfied that these orders are in respect of lands for which building permits have been applied for, fresh orders will be passed on the applications that led to Ex.P2. It is WP(C) 28723 & 28743 of 2008 3 directed that the petitioners shall also file unconditional undertakings in the form of an affidavit before the Secretary of the Municipality stating that in the event of a notification under sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated for acquisition of any portion of the property in question within one year from today, petitioners will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by him on the strength of the permits that may be issued pursuant to their applications. It is clarified that even after the period of one year, it will be open to the Municipality to acquire the lands, but, however, such acquisition shall be on payment of compensation not only for the land, but also for the structure, if any, put up by the petitioners. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-