IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22475 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.ALI HAJI, S/O.UNNEEN, KALAPPADAN HOUSE, KOLMANNA, HAJIYAR PALLI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI. BABU S.NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22475/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.A.156/08-09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT 14.7.2008 REFUSING TO GRANT BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2008 IN WPC NO.12667/08 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22475 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the respondent Municipality rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit. The reason stated in Ext.P2 is that in terms of the master plan, the area in question is earmarked for residential purposes and therefore, the permit for a commercial purpose cannot be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Municipality has no case that any proceedings for acquisition of the properties is in existence and that they also concede that no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that though a master plan has been prepared as stated in Ext.P2 long ago, nothing in furtherance thereto has been done by the Municipality deserves acceptance. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this court, where relief has been granted in identical circumstances concerning the very same Municipality relying on the Division bench judgment in Padmini v. State WPC 22475/08 :2 : of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465). 3. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P2 in this writ petition will stand quashed and it is directed that the plan submitted by the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the Municipality without being in any manner influenced by the plan or the earmarking of the land as stated above. Such reconsideration shall be done, provided the petitioner files 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 their property within one year from today, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up on the strength of the permit to be issued pursuant to this judgment. It is clarified that even after the period of one year mentioned above, it will be open to the Municipality to acquire the land in question, but however, the same shall be only on payment of compensation as is admissible not only for the land, but also for the structures. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp