IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 21541 of 2008(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SAHIR.E, AGED 29, ATHULYA, PUNNAPPALA PO WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUJEEB RAHMAN, K.T, AGED 36, S/O.UNNICHEKKU HAJIK, AYISHA MANZIL, PORUR PO, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI. V. VIJULAL RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21541 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The challenge is against Ext.P1, by which a building permit sought for by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the area in question has been earmarked in the master plan as an industrial area. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the master plan mentioned in Ext.P1, though prepared in the past, the respondents have not done anything in pursuance thereof. It is stated that since no further action has been taken for all these years, it is not reasonable to prevent the owners of the properties from developing their lands even at this distance of time. Counsel also makes reference to the judgments rendered by this court including Ext.P2 where relief in identical cases has been granted following the law laid down by this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465), Francis v. Chalakkudy Municipality (1999 (3) KLT 560) and also that of the Supreme Court in Raj S.Jathmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra (2005(11) SCC 222). 3. Having heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners WPC 21541/08 :2 : and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality, I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for particularly for the reason that the Municipality has no case that any further steps have been taken in pursuance to the master plan referred to above. 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P1 and it is directed that the petitioners shall submit an affidavit before the respondent Municipality undertaking in clear terms that in the event of any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated within a period of one year from today for the acquisition of any portion of the plot upon which they are proposing to make constructions, for any public purpose whatsoever, the petitioners will demolish the constructions put up by them on the strength of the building permit to be granted pursuant to this judgment without any demur and without claiming any compensation whatsoever. 5. The affidavit as directed above shall be filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. Once the Municipality notices this affidavit, the Municipality will reconsider the plan submitted by the petitioners for approval and if it is seen that the plan is otherwise in order and confirms to the statutory Building Rules, the WPC 21541/08 :3 : Municipality will approve the plan without being influenced by the existence of the master plan and the proposal for acquisition. 6. It is made clear that even after the period of one year mentioned above, it is always open to the respondent Municipality to acquire the petitioners property for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisition is on the basis of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act promulgated after one year from today, then the petitioners will be entitled for compensation not only for the land, but also for the building to be put on the basis of the permit issued pursuant to this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp