IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 555 of 2008(V) --------------------- PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------ 1. T. BEENA, M/S. SEEMATTI, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. V. THIRUVENKITAM, M/S. SEEMATTI, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-11. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY G.P. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU. S.RAMESH BABU (SC FOR COCHIN CORPN.) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.555 OF 2008 IN W.P.(c).No. 5436 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 ORDER Sri.Suresh Babu, learned Special Government Pleader has placed before me the original of the letter which was received from the District Collector. The letter is dated 06/06/2008 and it is very clearly stated therein that the land comprised in Survey No.410/01 of Ernakulam village in Kanayannoor Taluk is not included in the revised alignment of the proposed Kochi Metro Rail Project. The letter explains that as per the original alignment, the property in Survey No. 410/4 was also included and it was therefore that in the notification under Section 4(1) the said survey number came to be included. The stand taken by the District Collector in Ext.P16 is reiterated and it is unambiguously stated in the letter that the property in Survey No. 410/4 is not included in the present alignment of the proposed Kochi Metro Rail Project. 2. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that there is justification for allowing this review petition. In the review petition RP.No.555/08 2 my order dated 11/04/2008 in I.A.No.5227/08 is sought to be reviewed. Under that order I had directed the petitioners to enter into an agreement with the DMRC Pvt. Ltd. and I had also directed the first respondent Corporation to issue building permit to the petitioners for carrying out the constructions in the properties covered by Ext.P16( the properties in Survey Nos. 410/1, 410/3, 410/4 and 4105) once the petitioners execute such an agreement with DMRC Pvt. Ltd. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader Sri.Suresh Babu drew my attention to Section 393 of the Municipalities Act and submitted that so long as the property in Survey No. 410/4 is included in the notification under Section 4(1), it will not be legal on the part of the Corporation to issue a building permit in the absence of an erratum notification deleting survey No. 410/4 from the purview of the earlier notification. Technically what the learned senior Government Pleader submits is correct. But justice demands that the petitioner should not be compelled to wait till the authorities come out with an erratum notification In my opinion, in view of the conceded position that the properties in Survey Nos. 410/1, 410/3, 410/4 and 4105 are outside the proposed project, petitioners should be permitted to carry out RP.No.555/08 3 constructions in accordance with the plan submitted by them before the Corporation, if the Corporation finds the plan to be otherwise in order. The result is that I allow the Review Petition and modify the operative portion of my order dated 11/04/2008 ( paragraph 3) by specifically directing the first respondent to issue building permit to the petitioners for carrying out constructions on their properties covered by Ext.P16 and District Collector's letter C1-18229/2008 dated 06/06/2008, if the plan submitted by them regarding the proposed construction is otherwise in order i.e. in accordance with the Municipality Building Rules. Since the matter has been pending with the Corporation for quite some time, there will be a further direction that the Secretary of the Corporation will ensure that the plan submitted by the petitioners for construction is considered and permit issued without undue delay. At any rate the plan with other papers should be processed and permit should be issued within the statutory time limit of 15 days itself of the day the petitioners produces copy of this order. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. RP.No.555/08 4