IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18238 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ POOVANPATTIL AREEKATTU ABDU RAHIMAN, S/O.HASSAN HAJI, PULPATTIL AREEKATTU HOUSE, WEST KODOOR, KODOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT: ------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY \SC SRI BABU S. NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008 ALONG WITH WP(C) 18239 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18238 & 18239 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 18, 2008 JUDGMENT In these cases, the challenge is against orders passed by the respondent Municipality, rejecting the applications made by the respective petitioners for building permit. 2. In W.P.(C) 18238 of 2008, the rejection order is Ext.P2 and the reason stated is the zoning regulations. According to the petitioner, though the draft scheme has been published, there has not been any progress and the petitioner is referring to Ext.P4, a judgment rendered by this court in an identical situation, following an earlier judgment of this court as well as the Apex Court. 3. In so far as W.P.(C) 18239 of 2008 is concerned, the order of rejection is Ext.P3 wherein it is stated that under the master plan, the land has been shown as paddy field and hence the application is against the Municipal Building Rules. Here again, the petitioner raised identical contentions and is referring to Ext.P4, a judgment rendered by this court in WP(C) 4962/2008, dealing with the claim raised by a similarly situated W.P.(C) 18238 & 18239 of 2008 2 person and that too against the respondent Municipality itself. 4. Having regard to the similarity of the facts with the cases decided by this court in the aforesaid two judgments, I see no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Judge who disposed of those cases. 5. Accordingly, these writ petitions will stand disposed of as follows:- In so far as the request made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18238 of 2008 is concerned, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Municipality stating unambiguously that in the event of any notifications under Sec.4(1) of the Act being promulgated for the acquisition of any portion of the petitioner's property for any public purposes within a period of one year from the date of filing of the affidavit, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the construction put up on the acquired property on the strength of the permit to be granted to him pursuant to this judgment. The Municipality upon noticing that affidavit, will consider the application submitted by the petitioner for approval and if the plan is seen otherwise in order, W.P.(C) 18238 & 18239 of 2008 3 the Municipality will pass orders and issue permit to the petitioner. In other words, the existence of the proposal to acquire the property for any public purpose as per the Kunnummal Scheme or any other schemes shall not be a ground for rejecting the plan. It is needless to mention that even after the period of one year, it is always open to the Municiplaity to acquire the petitioner's property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but under such a situation, the petitioner will be entitled for adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the building also. 6. In so far as the petitioners in W.P.(C) 18239 of 2008 are concerned, since they are relying on Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the District Collector permitting conversion of the land, and in view of the assertion that the land was converted into garden land, I direct that the petitioners shall produce those orders before the 1st respondent Municipality. On such production of the orders, the 1st respondent shall verify and ascertain as to whether the land mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 is the land which is mentioned by the petitioners in the application submitted by them. If the land is found to be the same and that W.P.(C) 18238 & 18239 of 2008 4 it is a reclaimed land, revised orders consistent with Ext.P4 judgment will be passed by the 2nd respondent. It is also directed that an undertaking similar to the one to be furnished by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 18238 of 2008 shall be furnished by the petitioners in W.P.(C) 18239 of 2008 also. 7. It is clarified that it is open to the Municipality to always initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-