IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22258 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. MADHUSUDHANAN.T, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, ARUKIZHAYA MANJERI-676121, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. SREELEKHA, W/O.MADHUSUDHANAN.T, ARUKIZHAYA, MANJERI-676121, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECETARY 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.K.R.DEEPA SRI.BABU S.NAIR, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22396 OF 2008 WPC NO. 22321 OF 2008 WPC NO. 22304 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321, 22304 & 22396 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The building permits applied for by the petitioners in these cases have been rejected. 2. The orders of rejection have been marked as Ext. P3 in W.P. (C) No. 22304/08, Exts. P3 and P4 in W.P.(C) No. 22258/08 and Ext. P2 in W.P.(C) No. 22321/08. The only reason stated is that the plots involved are included in a scheme framed by the respondent Municipality. Petitioners complain that although a scheme was framed as stated by the Municipality long ago, the Municipality has not done anything pursuant thereto. It is submitted that in identical cases, permits have been granted and this includes those permits which were granted in the light of the various judgments rendered by this Court. They are also relying on the judgments of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala {1993(3) KLT 465} and W.P.(C) Nos. 12665, 12666 and 12667 of 2008 in support of their respective W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321 OF 2008 etc. -2- contentions. 3. On a close reading of the writ petitions I am satisfied that the cases put forward by the petitioners are identical to those cases which have been dealt with in the aforesaid judgments and therefore there is absolutely no reason to take a view different from what was taken in the aforesaid cases. 4. Accordingly Exts. P3, P3 and P4, and P2 in W.P.(C) Nos. 22304, 22258 and 22321/08 respectively are quashed. It is directed that the Municipality shall reconsider the applications and plans submitted by the petitioners in these cases without being influenced in any manner by the earmarking of the properties under the town planning scheme, provided the petitioners file undertakings in the form of affidavits before the Secretary of the respondent Municipality stating unconditionally that in the event of any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being issued for the acquisition of any portion of their property within one year from today, they will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by them on the strength of the permit to be issued to them pursuant to this judgment. It is W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321 OF 2008 etc. -3- clarified that it is always open to the Municipality to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose, but if such acquisitions on the basis of any notification issued after one year, petitioners will be entitled for compensation not only for the land but also for the structures put up by them. 5. In so far as W.P.(C) No. 22396/08 is concerned, Ext. P2 is the impugned order by which application for building permit has been rejected based on the inclusion of the land in the town planning scheme and for the further reason that the land in question is classified as a paddy field. In so far as the ground of inclusion in the town planning scheme is concerned my conclusion in the foregoing paragraphs will apply to the petitioner herein also. 6. In so far as the statement in Ext.P2 that the land in question is a paddy field is concerned, petitioner is relying on Ext. P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer permitting conversion under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In view of Ext. P1, I direct that the Secretary of the Municipality shall inspect the land in question and if he is satisfied that Ext. P1 pertains to the land in respect of which the permit is applied for, the W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321 OF 2008 etc. -4- application shall be reconsidered in the manner as ordered in the previous paragraphs. Petitioner shall also file an undertaking as directed above. 7. Needless to say, in all other respects, the Secretary shall also ensure that the applications made are in compliance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-