IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1340 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PREETHI, W/O.SHAJI, SREE VAISAK, POIKKATTU HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.K. DEEPA, SRI. M. P. ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No.1340 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner wants to construct a building in a property belonging to him. Building permit is not being issued by the Municipality on the ground that the Municipality proposes to acquire the property for a public purpose. The petitioner earlier approached this court and by Ext.P4 judgment, this court noting the readiness of the petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect that in the event of the Municipality being able to facilitate promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within one year, the petitioner will not demand any compensation for the constructions made by him, permitted the petitioner to approach the Government with a direction to the Government to consider the petitioner's request with as much sympathy as possible, taking into account the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others [(2005) 11 SCC 222]. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application, in which he has specifically stated that he is prepared to file an affidavit as directed in Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that Ext.P5, despite the direction in Ext.P4 judgment has not yet been considered by the 2nd respondent. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. W.P(C)No.1340 of 2009 - 2 - 3. When this court by Ext.P4 judgment permitted the petitioner to approach the Government and the Government was directed to consider the petitioner's request, when Ext.P5 was submitted, the Government has a duty to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously. However, learned Government Pleader pointed out that as required in Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner has not submitted an affidavit along with Ext.P5 application. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: 4. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. At the time of hearing the petitioner shall produce an affidavit as contemplated in Ext.P4 judgment and orders shall be passed taking into account that affidavit also. The petitioner shall forward a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment to the 2nd respondent for compliance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs