IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9463 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.SARATHCHANDRAN, S/O.MUKUNDAN NAIR, "SOORYA", ARRA-165, T.C.13/1827/14, KALAKAUMUDI ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO), TRIVANDRUM. 2. C.GIRIJA, W/O.SARATHCHANDRAN, "SOORYA", ARRA-165, T.C.13/1827/14, KALAKAUMUDI ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO),TRIVANDRUM. 3. PREM NAVAS, S/O.NOORUDEEN, T.C.31/722(2), "SHAMEER", PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. 4. JASMI BEEGUM, W/O.PREM NIVAS, T.C.31/722(2) "SHAMEER", PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. 5. ASWIN GOPINATH, S/O.DR.GOPINATHA PILLAI, VRINDAVAN HOUSING COLONY, T.C.2/2474, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 6. SELMA SASIDHARAN, W/O. ASWIN GOPINATH, VRINDAVAN HOUSING COLONY, T.C.2/2474, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SPECIAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL WELFARE (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 9463 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge Exts.P2, P3 and P4 orders issued by the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation rejecting their applications for building permit on the ground that the properties are included in the Medical College Development Scheme. On the writ petition coming up for admission Sri.P.K.Manojkumar, Standing Counsel took notice for R2 and the Government Pleader Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar has taken notice on behalf of respondents R1, R3 and R4. I have heard the submissions of Sri. N.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned senior counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and also those of the learned Government Pleader. My attention was drawn by Sri.S.Sugunapalan to Ext.P5 judgment passed by this court in similar circumstance. It is conceded by the learned Government Pleader as well as by the learned senior counsel for the Corporation that till this date no notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated for the acquisition of any portion of the properties belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of the medical college area development scheme which takes in construction of medical college staff quarters. WP(C)N0.9463/08 -2- The principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala, 1999(3) KLT 465 is to the effect that it is possible to said that there are proceedings for acquisition of a given property for a public purpose only if a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued in respect of the property. The petitioners therefore in my opinion are entitled for relief to the extent granted to the petitioners in Ext.p1 judgment. The result therefore is that Exts.P2, P3 and P4 are quashed on condition that the petitioners give an undertaking in the form of a affidavit stating that in the event of a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated within a period of one year from today the petitioners will surrender the property including the building constructed on the strength of the permits to be issued pursuant to this judgment without claiming any compensation for the building. Once such an affidavit is filed the corporation will reconsider the plans submitted by the petitioners for approval and if the plans are otherwise in order approval will be granted a permits issued. It is also made clear that even after the one year period mentioned in this judgment it will always be open for the respondents to acquire the petitioner's properties for genuine public purpose but under such a WP(C)N0.9463/08 -3- demand respondents will be liable to pay adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/