IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9658 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BECODAN SAMEER, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, THAHIRA MANZIL, NETTUR P.O., THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALASSERY. 2. SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY. 3. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 9658 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.T.M.Abdul Latiff, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.I.V.Pramod, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. Sri.Latiff submits that development plan, which is referred to in Ext.P1, yet to be notified by the Government. He also submitted that till this moment no concrete steps have been taken by anybody for acquiring any portion of the petitioner's property for the purpose of the proposed road. 2. Sri.I.V.Pramod will resist the submissions of Sri.Abdul Latiff. However, he did not assert that the development plan has been notified under the provisions of the Town Planning Act. The issue, in my opinion, is covered by the judgment of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1993 (3) KLT 465), and that in Francis v. Chalakkudy Municipality (1999 (3) KLT 560) and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others( 2005 (11 SCC 222). 3. Under the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P1 and direct the WPC No.9658/2008 2 Municipality to pass fresh orders regarding granting of approval to the plan submitted by the petitioner and issuing building permit on the basis of such approval, provided the petitioner complied with the following conditions; The petitioner will furnish an undertaking before the Municipality in the form of an affidavit 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 petitioner's property for the purpose of construction of Thalassery – Irikkoor road or any other public purpose, within one year of he date of the undertaking the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the building which may be put up by him on the strength of the permit to be issued to him pursuant to this judgment. In other words, existence of the development plan and the proposal to acquire the property will not be a ground for rejecting the plan. If the plan is otherwise in order, the plan will be approved. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk WPC No.9658/2008 3