IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21701 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.ISMAIL, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI KIZHAKKEPALLIKKAL HOUSE, HAJIYAR PALLI PO., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TRIVANDRUM 2. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA ADV. SRI.BABU S.NAIR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21701/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order passed by the respondent Municipality rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit. The reason stated in Ext.P1 is that the land in question is included in a DTP scheme, in terms of which the area is earmarked for commercial purposes. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, apart from promulgating the scheme long ago, Municipality has not take any action in pursuance there to. According to him, in view of the inaction and inordinate delay on the part of the Municipality, there is absolutely no justification for the Municipality to decline the permission sought for. 2. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this court concerning the very same WP(c).No.21701/2008 2 Municipality in identical circumstances, following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case reported in Padmini V. State of Kerala(1999(3)KLT 465) and also the judgment of the apex court in Raj S Jetmalani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2005(11)SCC 222). 3. On facts, having regard to the Ext.P6 judgment referred to above, I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner is identical with the case dealt with in the aforesaid judgment. In view of this I quash Ext.P2 and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Municipality to reconsider the application made by the petitioner and to pass orders there on. Such reconsideration shall be on condition that the petitioner files an affidavit undertaking that if a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published within one year from today, for acquisition of any part of the property in question, he will not be entitled to be compensated for the construction which he may make, on WP(c).No.21701/2008 3 the strength of the permit that may be issued to him. It is also clarified that, even after the period of one year, it will be open to the Municipality to acquire the land for any genuine public purpose but however, the same will be on payment of the compensation not only for the land but also for the construction, which the petitioner may make. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.21701/2008 4