IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24144 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.P.ANILKUMAR S/O. A.P.BALAN, AKKARAPURAKKAL HOUSE MALAPPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY ,MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.BABU S.NAIR, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.24145/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) Nos. 24144 & 24145 OF 2008 Y ========================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, Ext.P3 orders are under challenge. 2. By the aforesaid orders, the applications made by the petitioners herein for building permit have been rejected the respondent Municipality on the ground that the land in question is included in a DTP Scheme. In so far as WP(C) No. 24144/08 is concerned, the reason stated is that in the scheme, the land has been earmarked as an industrial area. In Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.24145/08, it is stated that the land is proposed to be acquired for residential purpose. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that apart from framing a scheme long ago as stated in the aforesaid orders, the Municipality has not done anything in pursuance thereof. It is sated that despite the long lapse of time and the default that has been committed by the Municipality, it is not legal or proper to decline permit to the land owners and deny their legitimate right to make use of their land as they deem fit. Counsel also makes reference to Exts.P6 to P8 judgments rendered by this court wherein on identical grounds, relief has been WPC 24144 & 24145/08 :2 : granted by this court. 4. On going through the judgments referred to above and on appreciating facts pleaded by the petitioners, I am satisfied that the case canvassed by the petitioners is identical in all respects and that there is absolutely no reason to deny the relief prayed for. 5. Accordingly Ext.P3 orders in these cases will stand set aside and the Municipality shall reconsider Ext.P2 applications made by the petitioners and pass orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 6. It is also directed that the petitioners shall file 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 the property in question within one year from today, the petitioners will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by them on the strength of the permit to be issued to them WPC 24144 & 24145/08 :3 : pursuant to Ext.P2 application. It is clarified that it is always open to the respondents to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp