IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25467 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SRI.P.K.ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 29, S/O.KUNJIMHAMMED, PAYYANIL KARALATH HOUSE, VARANCODE, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25467 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Ext.P3 order is under challenge. By this order, an application made by the petitioner for a building permit has been rejected by the respondent Municipality on the ground of the pendency of a DTP Scheme and that the land in question is a paddy field. 3. Counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P1 proceedings of the District Collector, Malappuram whereby he was granted permission for conversion of the land in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. On this basis, it is contended that the land has already been converted. If Ext.P1 is in respect of the land which is subject matter of Ext.P2 application, which resulted in Ext.P3, objection that the land in question is a paddy field no longer survives. 4. In so far as the pendency of a DTP Scheme is concerned, counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P4 and several other judgments rendered by this court granting relief in identical circumstances. In view of the above, I see no justification to decline relief to the petitioner. WPC 25467/08 :2 : 5. Accordingly, Ext.P3 will stand quashed. The petitioner is directed to produce Ext.P1 before the Secretary of the Municipality and on such production , the Secretary shall inspect the site in question and if he is satisfied that the order is in relation to the site proposed by the petitioner, he shall pass fresh orders on Ext.P2 in the light of the result of his inspection. It is directed that orders on the request for building permit shall be considered irrespective of the nomenclature used in regard to the nature of the land. 6. It is also directed that the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent Municipality undertaking in clear terms that if notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued within one year from today, he will not be entitled to compensation for the construction that he undertakes on the strength of the permit which is to be issued in pursuance to this judgment. However, it is also clarified that even beyond that period, it will be open to the Municipality to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the land, but however, the same will be subject to payment of compensation as is admissible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp