IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35269 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR. K.THANKAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O KOCHUKUNJU, PRESIDENT, INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE NEDUMANGAD MUNCIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695 541. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MUNICIPALITY. SHRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35269 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard Shri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. Learned counsel addressed arguments on the basis of the pleadings of their respective parties. My attention was drawn to my own judgment in WP(C) No. 29819/06 and it was submitted that the fact situation, which obtained in this case, is somewhat comparable. The question is whether the building permit applied for by the petitioner can be rejected on the ground that there is a proposal for establishment of a lorry parking ground as per IDSMT scheme. The contention raised in the statement filed by the Municipality is that as per the approved DTP scheme, the property including that of the petitioner is reserved for establishment of lorry parking ground. The petitioner’s case is that the scheme was notified way back in 1998 and that till this date no concrete steps have been taken for implementation of the scheme i.e. for establishing lorry parking ground and that the scheme has become lapsed / oppressive. The issue, in my opinion, is somewhat covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Padmini Vs. State WP(C) No. 35269/2007 -2- of Kerala , reported in 1999(3) KLT 465 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju S.Jethmalani and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2005 (11) Supreme Court 222. According to me, there is a justification for granting relief similar to the one which was given to the petitioner in WP(C) No.29819/06. 2. I therefore, dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions. The petitioner is permitted to file an affidavit before the Secretary of the Municipality, wherein he will state that in the event of the Municipality facilitating promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of one year from the date of issue of permit to him, he shall surrender possession of the site as well as the building constructed on the strength of the permit without claiming any compensation for the building. Once such an affidavit is filed by the petitioner, which I expect the petitioner to do immediately, the Municipality will scrutinize the plan and if the plan is found to be otherwise in order, the Municipality will approve the plan and issue building permit. In other words, existence of the DTP scheme and reservation of land for the establishment of lorry parking area as per that scheme will WP(C) No. 35269/2007 -3- not be a ground for rejecting the permit. It is made clear that nothing stated in this judgment will stand in the way of the Municipality acquiring the property for any genuine public purpose even after the one year period mentioned in this case. Under such a contingency, the petitioner will be entitled to get adequate compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Decision on the permit application should be taken by the Municipality within a period of one month of petitioner filing the affidavit. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg