IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10099 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.P.CHERIAN, S/O.A.L.PORINCHU, RESIDING AT MANAVALAN HOUSE, AVENUE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 005. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OFFICE, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION FOR R.1,2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R.1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10099 OF 2008 - B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to issue a building permit to the petitioner to construct a residential building in the plot of land belonging to him. There is also a prayer seeking to quash the Detailed Town Planning Scheme in so far as the land in question is concerned. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that in respect of a plot of land owned by him in Sy. No. 475/P of Peringavu Village in Thrissur Corporation, he wants to construct a residential house and had applied for a building permit. That application made by him was considered and by Ext. P4 he was informed that since the land has been classified in the revenue records as paddy field, the permit sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 3. Though this order was issued as early as on 4.11.2005 petitioner still wants to set up a residential house and therefore the writ petition is filed seeking to quash the same. Petitioner is also W.P.(C) No.10099 OF 2008 - 2 - relying on Ext. P5 judgment rendered by this Court, dealing with rejection of an application for building permit, by the very same respondent Corporation. 4. Petitioner has produced as Ext. P6, photographs of the building constructed in the immediate neighbourhood, the genuineness of which is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the fact that the land is not a paddy field as is seen from the photographs is a matter which cannot of any dispute between the parties. 5. Then the only question is whether the classification as paddy field in the town planning scheme, is of any consequence. This very issue has been dealt with by this Court in Ext. P5 judgment where it has been held that the Coirporation is not justified in insisting that the petitioner should keep his property idle for the reason that there is a DTP Scheme in existence. On that basis, this Court has granted relief to the petitioner in Ext. P5 judgment in the following terms: “The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before the Corporation stating clearly that, in the event of the Government promulgating a notification under Section W.P.(C) No.10099 OF 2008 - 3 - 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within one year of receiving copy of this judgment for acquiring any portion of his property for the purpose of establishing the ring road which is proposed as per the DTP Scheme, the petitioner will not be entitled for any compensation for the building to be constructed pursuant to the permit granted under this judgment. The affidavit in this regard will be filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today. Once such an affidavit is noticed by the Corporation, the Corporation will pass fresh orders on the permit application submitted by the petitioner without delay. Existence of the DTP scheme and the proposal to have a ring road shall not be a ground for rejecting the plan. If the plan is otherwise in order, the same will be approved. It is made clear that even after the expiry of the period of one year mentioned in this judgment, the Corporation will be entitled to acquire the property in question for any genuine public purpose. But under such a contingency the petitioner will be entitled for adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the building also.” 6. In view of the similarity of facts involved in the judgment of this Court and the facts arising in this case, I am inclined to grant identical relief on the same terms. Accordingly, Ext. P4 will stand quashed. petitioner shall file an affidavit before the respondent Corporation undertaking that in the event that the Government issues a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisitioin Act, within one year of receiving copy of this judgment for acquiring any W.P.(C) No.10099 OF 2008 - 4 - portion of the property for any purpose as enumerated in the DTP Scheme, the petitioner will not be entitled for any compensation for the building to be constructed pursuant to the building permit to be granted. The affidavit shall be filed within 3 weeks from today. Once such an affidavit is filed before the Corporation, the Corporation will reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building permit and pass orders without any delay. It is clarified that the existence of the DTP Scheme shall not be a ground for rejecting the application made by the petitioner if the same is otherwise in order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-