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. 26136 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MATTUMMAL BASHEER HUSSAIN, MATTUMMAL HOUSE, BY PASS ROAD (NECHIKUTTY) KAVUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICTL COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R1, 2 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA R3 BY STANIND COUNSEL SRI BABU S. NAIR. 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) 26136 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 29, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Ext.P6 is the order under challenge. In relation to a plot of land mentioned in Ext.P7, earlier the petitioner had filed an application for a building permit and that was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 29.3.2005. Challenging this order, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) 19869/2008. Considering the delay in challenging Ext.P3, this Court dismissed that writ petition by Ext.P4 judgment, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application. Accordingly the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 plan and that is now rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 22.7.2008. The reason for rejection stated in Ext.P6 is the pendency of a master plan and that the request is against the terms of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my WP(C) 26136/08 2 attention to Exts.P7 to P7(9) judgments rendered by this Court in relation to the very same Municipality, whereby relief has been granted. 4. The facts being identical to the cases decided by this Court in Exts.P7 to P7(9), I see no justification to deny the relief sought for. Accordingly Ext.P6 will stand set aside and the Municipality shall reconsider Ext.P5 application without being influenced in any manner by the master plan mentioned in Ext.P6. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. It is also directed that the petitioner shall file 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 the property in question within one year from today, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the WP(C) 26136/08 3 construction which may be put up by him on the strength of the permit to be issued to him pursuant to Ext.P2 application. It is clarified that it is always open to the respondents to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-