IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26124 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. CHOLAKKAL PATHUMMA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.PALAKKAN ABDUL ASSEES,P.O.MELMURI, MALAPPURAM. 2. SAHIRA VALAPRA, W/O.ABDULLA NAMBIKUNNAN, NAMBIKUNNAN HOUSE, P.O.NARUKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26124 OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P5. By this order, the request made by the petitioners for a building permit has been rejected stating that in terms of the master plan, the land in question is a paddy field. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the land in relation to which application was made was already converted into garden land, based on Exts. P2 and P4 orders issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 2. A reading of Ext. P5 shows that the only reason stated is that the land is a paddy field. If as stated by the petitioners, the land has already been converted on the strength of Exts. P2 and P4, the objection mentioned in Ext. P5 is factually on an incorrect basis. 3. Therefore, Ext.P5 will stand quashed and the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioners shall produce Exts. P2 and P4 before the 1st respondent and thereupon the 1st respondent shall inspect the premises and confirm as to whether Exts. P2 and P4 are W.P.(C) No. 26124 OF 2008 -2- in relation to the land mentioned in the applications which led to Ext. P5. If it is confirmed that it is so, necessarily, the application made by the petitioners shall be reconsidered. 4. The petitioners are also directed to submit an affidavit before the respondent Municipality undertaking in clear terms that in the event of any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated within a period of one year from today for the acquisition of any portion of the plot upon which they are proposing to make constructions, for any public purpose whatsoever, the petitioners will demolish the constructions put up by them on the strength of the building permit to be granted pursuant to this judgment without any demur and without claiming any compensation whatsoever. 5. It is made clear that even after the period of one year mentioned above, it is always open to the respondent Municipality to acquire the petitioners' property for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisition is on the basis of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act promulgated after one year from today, then the petitioners will be entitled for compensation not W.P.(C) No. 26124 OF 2008 -3- only for the land, but also for the building to be put up on the basis of the permit issued pursuant to this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-