IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24356 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ANNIE JOHN, W/O.M.O.JOHN, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO.81, NEHRU NAGAR, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-6. BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- 1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRMT.K.P.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24356 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the co-owner of a parcel of land, approximately 16 cents in extent, situated within the local limits of Palakkad Municipality. With a view to put up a shop building in the said parcel of land, which lies in Big Bazaar, Palakkad, the petitioner applied to the Secretary of Palakkad Municipality, for a building permit way back in the year 1995. That application was rejected on the ground that the Municipality proposes to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of establishing a cart stand. The acquisition did not materialise. The petitioner therefore, applied for a fresh building permit. That application was also rejected by Ext.P4 resolution dated 13.12,2004, again on the ground that, the Municipality proposes to acquire the land for the purpose of the cart stand. Even thereafter, the land was not acquired. The petitioner again submitted another application for building permit dated 14.7.2006 (No.EJRR.272/06-07/PWA 2 W.P.(C).No.24356 of 2009 dated 14.7.2006). Since, orders were not passed thereon, this writ petition was filed on 24.8.2009, seeking a direction to the Municipality to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon. 2. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 7.9.2009 this Court passed the following interim orders :- “ Standing counsel takes notice for first respondent. There will be an interim order that the petitioner's request for building permit will be considered and orders issued without reference to any Town Planning Scheme. Such decision shall be issued within a period of one month from now. That, and construction, if any, on the basis of such decision will be provisional and subject to further orders.” 3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, though pursuant to the said interim order, the Municipality had issued a building permit, the petitioner has not commenced the construction of a building for the reason that, as per the terms of the interim order passed by this Court, any construction will be subject to the outcome of this writ petition and therefore, 3 W.P.(C).No.24356 of 2009 the petitioner did not want to spend money by putting up the building, while the writ petition was pending in this Court. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Palakkad Municipality submitted that, though the petitioner's application for building permit was rejected twice on the ground that, the Municipality proposes to acquire the petitioner's land for the purpose of putting up a cart stand, no action has been taken to acquire the land for the past nearly two decades. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. From the pleadings and the submissions made at the bar, it is evident that, for the past nearly 20 years the Municipality has not gone ahead with the proposal to acquire the petitioner's land for the purpose of establishing a cart stand. It is therefore evident that the Municipality is not serious about the acquisition. In such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner can not be disabled from putting her land to profitable use. In view of the fact that, a building permit was issued, pursuant to the 4 W.P.(C).No.24356 of 2009 interim order of this Court, no further orders are called for except to direct that the building permit issued by the local authority pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 7.9.2009, which is extracted above, shall be deemed to be a regular building permit, issued in terms of the provisions of Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. If the validity of building permit has expired, the local authority shall renew the same, on the petitioner paying the prescribed fee and submitting an application in that regard. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ami/