IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27136 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SASIDHARAN K., S/O.K.GOVINDAN, KALLIYATH HOUSE, MOONNAMPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.27136/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 22.12.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT WITH RESPECT TO 10.58 CENTS OF LAND. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 15.1.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT WITH RESPECT TO 8 CENTS OF LAND. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 27.7.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN CERTIFICATES AND SUCH OTHER PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 14.9.2008 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2009 IN W.P(C). 16295/09. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27136 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The impugned Ext.P7 is issued stating that the area in question is earmarked for being acquired for residential purposes and that the building permit is in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The second among the objections, if curable, is a matter for which the petitioner has to be given an opportunity. In so far as the first objection is concerned, no acquisition proceedings are shown to have been commenced. Therefore, the petitioner's case in this regard stands squarely covered by the decisions reported in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999(3) KLT 465], Nazar P.K. v. Malappuram Municipality [2009(3) KLT 35] as also in the judgment dated 25.6.2008 in W.P(C).15077/08. Under such circumstances, Ext.P7 is quashed and Ext.P6 is ordered to be reconsidered in the light of what is stated above. Let this be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.26/08.