IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1985 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DEEPA V., UDAYAM, SREERAM VIHAR, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY. 3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, THALASSERY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 1985 OF 2008-K ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25TH JANUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Sri.I.V.Pramod, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the Municipality. Sri. Pramod submits that the fact situation in this case is somewhat comparable to the situation which existed in the case covered by Ext.P4 judgment. Considering the decision taken in Ext.P4 judgment, on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3)K.L.T.465), judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Francis v. Chalakudi Municipality, (1999(3)K.L.T.560) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Others, [(2005) 11 S.C.C.222], I feel that the same relief can be given to the petitioner also. Till date no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated for acquisition of any portion of the petitioner's property. In this case also Sri. Pramod drew my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sayeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005(4)K.L.T.1027) and argued that as per the master plan approved by the Government vide notification, the area in question is a commercial area and that even the Government has no power to grant exemption. But as WP(C)No.1985/2008 -2- noticed by me in Ext.P4 judgment, in this case where for the past more than two decades the master plan has not been implemented, as regards the commercial development proposed therein, it is not just or proper to insist that the valuable residential property belonging to the petitioner should remain idle. Moreover it is noticed that the extent belonging to the petitioner is very small. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions: 2. The petitioner shall submit undertaking in the form of an affidavit in which he will state that in case the Municipality comes out with a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring any portion of the plot on which the building is proposed to be constructed within one year from today, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the constructions. The Municipality is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 plan submitted by the petitioner, once affidavit as directed above is filed by the petitioner. Permit should be granted if the plan is otherwise in order within one month of petitioner submitting affidavit as directed above. The existence of the master plan and proposal to acquire the land at some future time shall not be a ground for rejection of the plan. It is however, clarified that even WP(C)No.1985/2008 -3- after the period of one year mentioned herein above it will be open to the Municipality to acquire the petitioner's property for any genuine public purpose. But under such an event the petitioner will be entitled for compensation not only for the land, but also for the constructions put up by him on the strength of the permit to be issued to him pursuant to this judgment. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. WP(C)No.1985/2008 -4-