IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5659 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VINU KRISHNAN,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHARUVILAKATHU HOUSE MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., PATTOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,OFFICE OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5659 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T I have heard the submissions of Shri. V.Manu, learned counsel for the petitioner and also those of Shri.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader. 2. Shri.Manu submitted that Ext.P3 judgment has been issued by this Court in respect of an adjacent property and the petitioner therein is the petitioner's neighbour. On going through Ext.P3 it is seen that the Corporation in that case stopped constructions on the basis of the building permit which had been issued to the petitioner therein on the ground that the property is covered by the Trivandrum Medical College Area Development Scheme. In the present case the reason for cancellation of Ext.P1 is the existence of a proposal for establishment of medical staff quarters. Though, going by Exts.P2 & P3, it would appear that acquisition of properties in these cases are for different purposes, I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both these come under the Medical College Development Scheme. Whatever that be, the issue WP(C) No. 5659/2008 -2- is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Padmini Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1999 (3) KLT 465. Hence, I am inclined to grant relief similar to the relief which was given to the petitioners in Ext.P3 especially since I am told that the properties are situated near to each other. I direct the petitioner to submit an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Corporation stating clearly that in the event of promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the property in respect of which Ext.P1 building permit has been issued within one year from today, the petitioner will surrender the properties sought to be acquired as well as the building constructed on the strength of Ext.P1 without claiming any compensation for building. Once that affidavit is filed, Ext.P1 will revive and the petitioner will have the permission to continue with the construction. Considering the above direction, Ext.P2 is quashed subject to the condition that the undertaking should be filed before the Corporation. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) WP(C) No. 5659/2008 -3- jg