IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36662 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- P.K.MOHAMMED, PUTHIYA VEETTIL, MANNAM P.O., N.PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, N.PARAVUR. R1 BY SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR, SR. GOVT. PLEADER. R2 & R3 BY SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36662 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.T.A.Shaji, Standing Counsel for the Municipality seeks time to file counter affidavit. But, since I feel that the issue in this case is covered by judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and that of Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others [(2005) 11 SCC 222], I am not inclined to grant time for filing counter affidavit. Sri.Shaji submits that the Municipality genuinely requires the property in question and other properties for constructing a shopping complex. But, as rightly noticed by the Government in Ext.P3, though the proposal to acquire the property is in the air for long till this moment no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated for acquisition of properties. Under these circumstances, I quash Ext.P4 and dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions: The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before the 2nd respondent Municipality undertaking in very clear terms that in the event of any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner's property, within a period of one year from today, the petitioner will not be entitled WPC No. 36662 of 2007 2 for any compensation for the building which he may put up on the strength of the building permit to be issued to him by the Municipality. The petitioner will file such affidavit within three weeks from today and upon receiving that affidavit, the Municipality will consider the plan submitted by the petitioner for approval and will approve the same if it is otherwise in order. In other words, existence of the proposal to build a shopping complex by the Municipality will not be a reason for rejecting the plan. It is made clear that even after the expiry of the above mentioned one year period, this judgment will not stand in the way of the Municipality acquiring the property of the petitioner for a genuine public purpose in which case the petitioner will be entitled for adequate compensation as admissible under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Municipality in challenging Ext.P4 in appropriate proceedings, if so advised. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE btt WPC No. 36662 of 2007 3