IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 15337 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PAVITHRAN.K ,S/O.SREEDHARAN, SREE GARDEN, MUNDUPARAMBA,MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 15337 OF 2008 - A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P2 is an application made by the petitioner for the grant of a building permit. The application was considered by the Municipality and by Ext. P3 the same was rejected. The reason stated in Ext. P3 is that the area in question has been earmarked as an industrial area in the master plan. It is challenging Ext. P3, the writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, there are numerous residential houses in the area and that apart from making a master plan as stated in Ext. P3, the respondents have not taken any action in pursuance thereto. According to him, there is absolutely no justification to prevent construction of his house in the area where there are several such residential and commercial buildings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to Exts. P6 to P8 W.P.(C) No. 15337 OF 2008 -2- judgments rendered by this Court dealing with identical cases where relief has been granted. 3. In fact, Ext. P7 is a judgment concerning the respondent Municipality itself. In Ext. P7 judgment, following Ext. P6 judgment relief was granted in an identically situated case. In view of the law laid down by this Court Exts. P6 to P8 judgments I quash Ext. P3 and direct the respondent Municipality to consider Ext. P2 application submitted by the petitioner without being influenced in any manner by the master plan mentioned in Ext. P3. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. It is also directed that the petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Secretary of the Municipality stating unconditionally that in the event of any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being promulgated for the acquisition of any portion of the property in question within one year from today, the petitioner will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by him on the strength of the permit to be issued to him pursuant to Ext. P2 application. It is clarified that it is always open to the W.P.(C) No. 15337 OF 2008 -3- respondents to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-