IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21370 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.U.SIDDIQUE ,VELIYATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE P.O. PUTHUPPADY, PERUMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY MUVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21370 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5. Petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction of the shopping complex pursuant to Ext.P4 building permit obtained by him. 2. Facts of the case show that by Ext.P1, an application made by the petitioner for a building permit was rejected on the basis that the land in question was proposed to be acquired for construction of a bus bay. It would appear that on that basis, a Town Planning Scheme was framed and land acquisition steps were also initiated some time in 1988. However, the respondent failed to proceed with the matter, as a result of which, the acquisition proceedings also lapsed. By Ext.P2, the RDO himself has intimated the parties about the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. On the basis of Ext.P2, in WP(C) NO.152/04 filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 was also disposed of by this court, by judgment dated 17th of February 2004, directing reconsideration of the matter in the light of WPC 21370/08 :2 : Ext.P2. It was accordingly that by Ext.P4, building permit was granted to the petitioner on 4/2/2006. Petitioner submits that while he was proceeding with the construction on the strength of Ext.P4, Ext.P5 notice was issued by the respondent intimating that the land in question is proposed to be utilised by the Municipality for the construction of bus bay. It is challenging Ext.P5 in the aforesaid factual background the writ petition has been filed. 3. Though the case was adjourned for the standing counsel for the respondent to obtain instructions in the matter, instructions are not forthcoming. 4. As already noticed, permit was rejected and land acquisition proceedings were initiated on the basis that the land in question was to be used for construction of a bus bay. That land acquisition had lapsed as the respondent themselves discontinued the proceedings. It was on that basis, pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the matter was reconsidered and building permit was granted to the petitioner in 2006. Now again for the same reason, by Ext.P5, the petitioner is restrained from proceeding with the construction. 5. In the facts of this case, I see absolutely no justification in the WPC 21370/08 :3 : stand taken in Ext.P5. Therefore, Ext.P5 will stand quashed and the respondent is restrained from interfering with the construction undertaken by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P4 building permit issued to him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp