IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13962 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- K.MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O.HUSSAN HAJI, KUNNATHODI HOUSE, P.O.MELMURI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 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 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR -R1,R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. BABU S.NAIR, SC, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13962/2008 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED TITLE DEED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY TOGETHER WITH BASIC TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPROVAL BY THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 25/01/2007 ISSUED BY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10/04/2008 IN WP(C) NO.12665, 12666 & 12667 OF 2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN PADMINI V.STATE OF KERALA 1993 (3)KLT 465. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 13962 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Exts. P3 and P3(2) orders passed by the Secretary of the Municipality rejecting building permits sought for by the petitioner, are under challenge. The reason for rejection is that there is an approved Town Planning Scheme in which the land in question has been earmarked for parks and open spaces. It is the case of the petitioner that though a scheme as above has been framed, nothing in pursuance thereof has been done by the Municipality. It is also his case that in several cases concerning the very same Municipality, in identical circumstances relief has been granted by this Court. Petitioner is also making reference to Ext. P4 series of judgments and also Ext. P5 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in this context. 2. The Municipality has no case that any proceedings in pursuance to the Town Planning Scheme has been initiated. At this W.P.(C) No. 13962 OF 2008 -2- distance of time, mere pendency of the scheme without anything more, in my view, cannot be a reason for rejecting building permit sought for by the owners of the properties. This is the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts. P3 and P3(2) and directing the Municipality to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon. 3. It is directed that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Secretary of the Municipality in the form of an affidavit 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 his property in question, within one year from today, he will not be entitled to claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by him on the strength of the permit to be issued in pursuance to the direction in this judgment. It is also clarified that even after the one year specified above, it is always pen to the Municipality to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose, but however, petitioner will be entitled for compensation not only for the land but also for the W.P.(C) No. 13962 OF 2008 -3- building. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Municipality for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-