IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19953 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.H. MOHAMMED BASHEER, MIDHUNAM, SAHAKARANA NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -3. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (M) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R1,3 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19953 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. An application for a building permit made by the petitioner has been rejected by this order. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that in terms of the town planning scheme, the land in question is earmarked for recreational open space and therefore construction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be permitted. In support of Ext.P6, counter affidavit also has been filed. 2. However, the records are silent as to whether anything in pursuance to the so called scheme has been done by the Corporation and on the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits, without being contradicted by the respondents, that no steps have been taken in pursuance of the scheme stated to have been published by the respondents. It is also his case that several other constructions have come up in the area in question. 3. Since it is admitted position that nothing in pursuance to the scheme relied on in Ext.P6 has been done by the respondents, I see no justification to prevent the petitioner from utilising his land in the manner WPC 19953/08 :2 : he deems fit. If at all the scheme is finalised, it is up to the corporation to implement the same. This has not been done in this case. For that reason, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 will stand set aside and the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the application made by the petitioner and rejected by Ext.P6 will be reconsidered. It is directed that such reconsideration shall be on condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the respondent Corporation that in the event the respondents promulgate notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within one year from today, the petitioner will not be eligible for compensation for any construction that he may make in pursuance to the permit be issued to him. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings even after the one year period specified above, but however the same shall be only on payment of compensation as is admissible in law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp