IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13960 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PAUL K.J., S/O.JACOB K.I., C/O.DENCY FRANCIS, VADAKKAN HOUSE, KOTTAKUNNU, U.P.HILL, MALAPPURM-676505. 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 SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1, 2 AND 4 SRI.BABU S. NAIR, FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.13961 & 15077/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13960/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED DT. 2.11.2005 TOGETHER WITHBASIC TAX RECEIPT DT 17.1.2000. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL BUIDLING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTIONCERTIFICATE DT 5.12.2005 ISSUED BY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) 3209/2002 DT 19.11.2002. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT 9.4.2003. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN PADMINI V. STATE OF KERALA (1993(3) KLT 465. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 10.4.2008 IN WPC NO.12665, 12666 & 12667 OF 2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NOs. 13960, 13961 & 15077 OF 2008 ============================= Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P3 orders, by which applications made by the petitioners for building permits have been declined. In WP(C) Nos.13960 & 15077/08 the reason stated in Ext.P3 is that the land in question has been earmarked for acquisition for residential purposes as per the Mundaparamba scheme framed under the Town Planning Act. In WP(C) No.13961/08, the reason stated in Ext.P3 is that as per the master plan prepared for the Municipality, the land has been earmarked as a public/semi public area. 2. According to the petitioners, apart from framing the scheme, nothing further has been done by the Municipality or Government and that in the vicinity of the plots itself, several constructions, both residential and commercial, have come up. They are also referring to Exts.P6 and P7 judgments produced in WPC Nos. 13960 & 15077/08 and rendered by this court granting reliefs in identical circumstances, overruling the objections raised by the Municipality. WPC 13960, 13961 & 15077 /08 :2 : 3. I heard the standing counsel for the Municipality also. 4. In view of the similarity of facts of the petitioners case with the cases decided by this court in the aforesaid judgments, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the one taken by this court in the aforesaid judgments. Therefore these writ petitions are disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioners to make a fresh application to the Municipality for the grant of a building permit, in which case untramelled by the objection of the Municipality as taken in Ext.P3 orders, the applications shall be dealt with and orders will be passed consistent with the law laid down by this court in Exts.P6 and P7 and other judgments. 5. Petitioners shall submit their application within 2 weeks from today, in which case within 4 weeks thereafter orders shall be passed. Along with the application, the petitioners shall file undertakings in the form of affidavits 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, they will not claim WPC 13960, 13961 & 15077 /08 :3 : any compensation for the construction which may be put up by them on the strength of the permit to be issued to them pursuant to this judgment. It is clarified that it is always open to the Municipality to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisitions on the basis of any notification issued after one year, petitioners will be entitled for compensation not only for the land but also for the buildings. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp