IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24705 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K. PRAVEEN, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JANU NIVAS, MALAPPURAM POST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN 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. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 24705 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14h day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P3, an order passed by the respondent Municipality rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit on the ground that in terms of the master plan, the land in question is earmarked as an industrial area. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the master plan has been approved as stated in Ext. P3 nothing in furtherance thereof has been done by the Municipality and that despite the long lapse of time, there is absolutely no justification to decline permission to the land owner to utilise his land in the manner he deems fit. Counsel also refers to the judgments rendered by this Court where, in identical circumstances, relief has been granted to the applicants therein. 3. On going through Ext. P3 and in the light of the judgments W.P.(C) No. 24705 OF 2008 -2- relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner stands on an equal footing and that he deserves to be granted the relief sought for. 4. Accordingly, Ext. P3 order passed by the Municipality will stand set aside and Ext. P2 shall be reconsidered. However, such reconsideration shall be subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that in the event a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued within one year from today for the acquisition of the land in question, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the structure that may be put up by him on the strength of the permit which is to be issued pursuant to this judgment. It is also clarified that even thereafter it will be open to the Municipality to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the land, but however, the same shall be only subject to payment of compensation not only for the land, but also for the structure that may be put up by him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-