IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18039 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: A.V.JOSE , AGED 63, S/O.ALUKKA VARGHESE CHAIMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR ALUKKAS ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. THRISSUR RESIDING AT ALUKKA HOUSE, ARIST ROAD, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI SRI.V.R.SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOTTARATHIL BUILDING PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18039 OF 2008 - V ==================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order is under challenge. By Ext.P2, an application made by the petitioner for a building permit has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is to be acquired for commercial purposes as per Chala DTP Scheme. According to the petitioner, though the Chala DTP Scheme was prepared, no acquisition or other proceedings have been initiated by the Corporation and therefore the reason stated in Ext.P2 is unsustainable. Petitioner is also referring to Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this court where in respect of land covered by Trivandrum Medical College Area Development Scheme, relief has been granted by this court following the earlier judgments in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465) and Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra {(2005) 11 S.C.C.222}. 2. In view of the law laid down by this court in Ext.P3 and earlier judgments referred to above, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and the 3rd respondent-Corporation is directed to pass fresh orders on the building permit application submitted by the petitioner favourably if WPC 18039/08 :2 : the plan is otherwise in order on condition that the petitioner submits an undertaking in the form of an affidavit stating clearly that if a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is promulgated within one year of issuance of the building permit, the petitioner will surrender the property including the building constructed without claiming any compensation for the building. It is made clear that even thereafter if the Corporation or the Government wants to acquire the property for any genuine public purpose, this judgment will not stand in the way doing so and under such an event the respondents will give adequate compensation to the petitioner. Fresh orders on the building permit application will be passed by the 3rd respondent-Corporation at their earliest and at any rate within four weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp