IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23951 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BINDU BALAKRISHNAN D/O.K.P.BALAKRISHNAN,SITHARA, KOTTAKUNNU,MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS SRI.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM 3. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY MALAPPURAM 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23951 OF 2008 B ==================== Dated this the 26th 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, a building permit applied for by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of the pendency of a DTP Scheme, in terms of which the area in question has been classified as an industrial area. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the scheme as stated in Ext.P3 is framed, nothing in pursuance thereof has been done by the Municipality. He is also referring to Exts.P6 to P8 judgments rendered by this court dealing with identical case and that too concern the very same Municipality. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case dealt with by this court in the aforesaid judgments, I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner is identical and that she is entitled to the relief sought for. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 will stand quashed and the Municipality shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner. Such reconsideration of the application shall be on condition that the petitioner files an undertaking that in case the Municipality promulgates a notification WPC 23951/08 :2 : under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the petitioner's land within one year from today, petitioner will not be entitled to claim compensation of the structure that may be put up by her. However, it is clarified that even thereafter though it will be open to the Municipality to initiate land acquisition proceedings, the same will be only on payment of compensation as is admissible under the Land Acquisition Act not only for the land in question, but also for the structure that may be up on the strength of the permit to be issued to her . Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp