IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19865 of 2008(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- ASIF PUTHUSSERI, S/O.MUHAMMED PUTHUSSERY, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHUSSERI HOUSE, CHERAKKAKARA ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TOWN PLANNING, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE TOWN PLANNING, THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19865/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the respondent Municipality, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit, on the ground that the area in question is ear marked in the D.T.P scheme for service industrial purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, although several years have elapsed, nothing in pursuance thereof has been done by the Municipality and that in several cases permission has been granted, including those pursuant to the judgmentsa rendered by this court. It is contended that, in view of the inaction and negligence on the part of the Municipality, there is no justification in declining the permit 19865/2008 2 to the owner of the land to use the same in the manner he deems fit. 2. Learned counsel for the Municipality on the other hand points out that, in 2005 the petitioner had made an application and that the same was declined by Ext.P1. At this distance of time, for the only reason that, a fresh application was made and Ext.P4 order was passed, the relief should not be granted to the petitioner, ignoring the delay. 3. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P1 was challenged in WP(c).No.12012/2008, and by judgment dated 9th April, 2008, that was declined on account of delay in challenging Ext.P1. However, it was made clear in the judgment that the petitioner will be free to approach this court again if any fresh cause of action arise. Subsequently he made an application and that resulted in Ext.P4. Thus a fresh cause of action arose in his favour. If that be so, I do not find any merit in the plea of 19865/2008 3 delay now raised against the petitioner. 4. On merits, I am satisfied that, since even according to the Municipality nothing in pursuance to the DTP has been done, there is no justification for declining the permission to the petitioner to make use of the land that he owns. It is also to be noticed that in several cases, identical reliefs have been granted by this court. In view of this Ext.P4 is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of as follows. The Municipality shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building permit. Such reconsideration shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner files an undertaking that in the event of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published within one year from today, for acquisition of the property in question,he will not be entitled to be compensated for the construction which he may make, on the strength of the permit that is to be issued to him. It is also clarified that, even after the 19865/2008 4 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 in accordance with the statutory provisions, not only for the land but also for the structure if any constructed thereon. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 19865/2008 5