IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18216 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER -------------- SHIJU LOUIS,M S/O.V.M. LOUIS, RESIDING AT VELIYATH HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU.P.O, THRISSUR - 680 005. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS ------------------ 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, KOORKANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1-2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1-2 SRI.M.R.DHANIL FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18216 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 by which a building permit sought for by the petitioner has been declined on the ground that there is a proposal for road widening. This contention is also reiterated by the respondent Corporation in the counter affidavit that is filed. However, what is seen is that this very issue has been considered by this court in Exts. P4 and P5 judgments. In fact, Ext.P4 judgment concerns the respondent Corporation itself and relying on the earlier judgments referred to above, relief has been granted. 2. In view of the similarity of the facts of the case decided by this court in Exts. P4 and P5 judgments and the case of the petitioner, I see no justification to deny the relief to him. Therefore, Ext.P3 will stand quashed and the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 3. The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before the Corporation stating clearly that, in the event of the Government promulgating a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within one year of receiving copy of this judgment for acquiring any WPC 18216/08 :2 : portion of his property for the purpose of road widening which is proposed as per the DTP Scheme, the petitioner will not be entitled for any compensation for the building to be constructed pursuant to the permit granted under this judgment. The affidavit in this regard will be filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today. Once such an affidavit is noticed by the Corporation, the Corporation will pass fresh orders on the permit application submitted by the petitioner without delay. Existence of the proposal for road widening shall not be a ground for rejecting the plan. If the plan is otherwise in order, the same will be approved. It is made clear that even after the expiry of the period of one year mentioned in this judgment, the Corporation will be entitled to acquire the property in question for any genuine public purpose. But under such a contingency, the petitioner will be entitled for adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the building also. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp