IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34312 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.FIROJA K., 50 YEARS, W/O.ANWAR, HOUSE NO.25/108, AYSHA MANZIL, NURANI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT.DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. ADV. SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34312 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property within the Palakkad Municipality. She submitted an application for a permit for construction of a building in that property. However, the same was rejected on the ground that as per Ext. P2 agreement, the petitioner had surrendered part of that property to the Municipality for the purpose of a master plan proposed by the Municipality. According to the petitioner, that was a reciprocal agreement by which some other persons were liable to give the petitioner certain extent of land in exchange of the land to be surrendered by the petitioner. That agreement was executed in 1989. The said proposed master plan did not take off. As a result, the other parties to the agreement have, already, either disposed of their property or used it for other purposes and as a result the agreement itself has become totally unworkable. The petitioner therefore submits that the petitioner's application for building permit cannot now be rejected relying on Ext. P2 agreement. The petitioner has therefore filed Ext. P5 petition before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is only appropriate that the 3rd respondent considers Ext. P5 appropriately. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date W.P.C. No. 34312/08 -: 2 :- of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.