IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28459 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HAMEEDA BEEVI D/O. LATE MARIYAM BEEVI, KOTTAPAKKU HOUSE MARKET ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT SANI BHAVAN, SREENAGAR, PARUTHIPARA, MUTTADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.C.ANIRUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.28459 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late P. Mariyam Beevi. The said Mariyam Beevi obtained a building permit for constructing a building in 33 cents of property belonging to her. After the death of the said Mariyam Beevi, the legal heirs wanted to get the permit changed in the name of the legal heirs. For proving their right as legal heirs, they produced a 'will' executed by late P. Mariyam Beevi. But the respondent – Corporation took a stand that they cannot act on the basis of the 'will' and the legal heirs have to produce a legal heirship certificate from the Tahsildar. It is challenging that action of the respondent that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the property in question is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the Trivandrum Development Authority and that is why the request of the legal heirs could not be considered. The learned counsel submits that in the said circumstances, the W.P.(C)No.28459/08 2 respondent intends to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the permit. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have never been put on notice regarding such a proceedings. He would further submit that in so far as no noficiation has been issued under the Land Acquisition Act, going by the decisions of this Court, the Corporation cannot take a stand that they will not re-issue the permit in the name of the legal heirs. 3. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions of the parties now, in so far as the petitioner has already filed Ext.P4 representation in this regard and therefore it is only appropriate that the respondent considers Ext.P4 and give a speaking order to the legal heirs in this regard. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the respondent for compliance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)No.28459/08 3