IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10166 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.LEADER PROPERTIES & ESTATES (P)LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PRASAD, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS 'RADHA MADHAVAM', ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10166 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April , 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.P.V.Kunikhikrishnan opposes the prayers in this writ petition. He drew my attention to the judgment of this court in Sayeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 1027) and submits that even the Government does not have power to allow zonal exemption. Per contra, Sri.Babu S.Nair drew my attention to the judgment of this court in Franchis v. Chalakkudy Municipality (1999(3) KLT 560). He also drew my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465) and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others ( 2005 (11) SCC 222). The development plan has not been implemented in the Corporation though the same had been in existence for several decades, so submits the learned counsel. It is seen from Ext.P1 that apart from the ground that if the permit is declined for zoning violation in terms of the sanctioned DTP scheme the ground that the NOC from the Public Works Department has not been produced is also raised. Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the WPC No.10166/2008 2 petitioner will be able to produce NOC from the Public Works Department if time is given. 2. Under the above circumstances, following the view taken by me in writ petitions raising similar grounds, I dispose of this writ petition in the following terms; i). Ext.P1 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to file an affidavit before the respondent Corporation stating unconditionally that they will not claim any compensation for the construction put up by them 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 for industrial or any other purposes within a period of one year from the date of filing the affidavit. ii). The petitioner will produce NOC from the Public Works Department. Iii). If both the conditions are complied with, the Corporation will reconsider the plan and grant approval to the same if the plan is otherwise in order. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk WPC No.10166/2008 3