IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23436 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S THRIMATHY & SONS (P) LTD., V.P.BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, NILAMBOOR , REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR V.P.THRIMATHY BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI. P.G. PRAMOD SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY MANJERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23436 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Ext.P2 order is under challenge. By this order, the respondent Municipality has declined the application made by the petitioner for a building permit for constructing a commercial building on the ground that the land in question is covered by a DTP Scheme and that in terms of the said scheme, the area is included in public and semi public zone. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no justification for rejecting his application for building permit and it is contended that apart from framing a scheme, nothing further has been done by the Municipality. She is also referring to the judgments rendered by this court including Ext.P3 where in respect of the very same Municipality, identical relief has been granted by this court. 3. In view of the similarity of the facts involved, I see no reason to take a view different from what is taken in Ext.P3. WPC 23436/08 :2 : Therefore, Ext.P2 will stand quashed and the Municipality is directed to consider Ext.P1 submitted by the petitioner within 6 weeks without being influenced in any manner by the ear marking of the properties for implementation of the DTP Scheme. Such reconsideration shall be subject to to the petitioner's filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Secretary of the Municipality stating unconditionally that in the event of any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated for the acquisition of any portion of her property within one year from today, she will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by her on the strength of the permit to be issued to her pursuant to this judgment. It is clarified that it is always open to the Municipality to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisition is on the basis of any notification issued after one year, petitioner will be entitled to compensation not only for the land but also for the building constructed in pursuance to the permit granted. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp