IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4787 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.T.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.T.T.MUHAMMED, THONNAMTHODIYIL HOUSE, J.N.ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SHRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4787 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that by Ext.P4 order the respondent-Municipality has rejected his application for building permit on the ground that the petitioner's plot is included in DTP scheme No.2 and is earmarked for road widening. The Municipality has filed a detailed counter affidavit producing Annexure R1(a) notification dated 19/04/1995 issued by the Municipality under the Madras Town Planning Act notifying the master plan. The counter affidavit refers to Section 393(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act and goes on to justify Ext.P4. It is claimed that the Council has already taken a decision to implement the scheme and all steps for acquisition of the land will be commenced within 12 months from 25/02/2008. 2. Heard Shri.P.Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.P.K.Vijaya Mohanan, learned standing counsel for the Municipality. 3. Learned counsel would address arguments on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties and would draw my attention to the various documents placed on record. Having considered the WP(C) No. 4787/2008 -2- rival submissions, I am of the view that the fact situation obtaining in this case is comparable to that obtained in Ext.P5 case. The claim of the Municipality in its counter affidavit is only that they will within 12 months from 25/02/2008 initiate steps for acquiring the property so as to implement the DTP scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Municipality comes out with a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within the aforesaid period, the petitioner is prepared to forego compensation for the building, which will be constructed on the strength of the permit. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: 4. The petitioner is directed to undertake before the Municipality by filing an affidavit on stamp paper of appropriate value that in the event of the Municipality facilitating promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on or before 29/09/2009 for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner's plot, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the building put up by him on the permit issued to him. Once the Municipality notices the above affidavit, the Municipality will re-consider the plan submitted by the petitioner and if the plan is otherwise in order, the WP(C) No. 4787/2008 -3- plan will be approved. In other words, the existance of the proposal for road widening as per the DTP scheme and the proposal for acquiring property will not be a ground for rejecting the plan. The Municipality will in any way pass orders on the plan in the light of the above directions and observations within a period of one month of petitioner filing the affidavit. It is made clear that even after the one year period mentioned in this judgment, it is always open to the Municipality to acquire the petitioner's property for genuine public purpose. But the acquisition is on the basis of Section 4(1) notification issued after 29/09/2009, the Municipality will become liable to pay adequate compensation not only for the land but also for the building. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg