IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12317 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MUHAMMED ASLAM, S/O.MUHAMMED CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, MAILAPURAM, DOWN HILL MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.BABU.S.NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 12317 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted by him to the respondent Municipality for a permit for construction of a building has been rejected by the Municipality on the reason that as per the master plan, the plot is included in the industrial and residential area and is intended to be acquired for widening the national high way and hence building permit cannot be issued. Ext.P1 is the rejection order. It is contended that though the master plan was approved as early as in 1984, the same has not been implemented in the Municipality for the past 24 years. The unimplemented master plan has become oppressive from the point of view of owners of land within the municipal area since they are not in a position to deal with their properties in manners of their choice in view of the existence of a master plan which will never be implemented. 2. The writ petition therefore has been filed by the petitioner WPC.No.12317/08 2 seeking to quash Ext.P1 order by which the Municipality rejected the petitioner's application for building permit and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Municipality to issue building permit to the petitioner. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri.Babu.S.Nair has taken notice on behalf of the Municipality and I have heard the submissions of Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.Babu.S.Nair. 4. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that the issue is covered by the judgment of 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 & others v. State of Maharashtra ( 2005(11)SCC 222). Several similar cases have been decided by me directing the local authorities concerned to issue building permits after obtaining undertakings from the parties concerned. I am inclined to grant the same relief to the petitioner also. 5. In the result, Writ Petition will stand allowed to the WPC.No.12317/08 3 following extent. 1) Ext.P1 is quashed. 2) The petitioner is directed to 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 petitioner 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. 3) The affidavit as directed above shall be filed by the petitioner 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 petitioner for approval and if it is seen that the plan is otherwise in order and confirms to the statutory building Rules, the Municipality will approve the plan without being influenced by the existence of the master plan WPC.No.12317/08 4 and the proposal for acquisition. 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 petitioner's 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 petitioner will be entitled for compensation not only for the land, but also for the building to be put up on the basis of the permit issued pursuant to this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.12317/08 5