IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34739 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ H.VASANTHAKUMAR.NO.26,NATESAN STREET T.NAGAR CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,T.JOHNSON, POTTAIVEEDU, MANJAKONAM, THIRPPARAPPU,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34739 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition are Exts.P5, P6 and P7 by which the Corporation has invoked Rule 16 of KMBR and cancelled the building permit which had been issued to the petitioner for construction of buildings. No counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents. Ext.P11 produced by the petitioner along with I.A.No.765 of 2008 will show that no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been initiated so far for acquisition of any portion f the petitioner's property for the construction of the road. The only ground on which Rule 16 has been invoked is that as per D.T.P.Scheme, there is a proposal for construction of the road through the petitioner's property. The issue according to me is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 11 S.C.C. 222]. In similar cases this court has cancelled the orders similarly passed by the local authorities rejecting the permit applications or orders cancelling the permits already issued on the ground of existence of D.T.P.Scheme or proposal for road widening or W.P.C.No.34739/07 - 2 - proposal to acquire portion of the properties for public purposes on condition that the party submit an undertaking before the local authority stating that in the event of promulgation of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within a specified period, the party will not be entitled for any compensation for the constructions to be made on the basis of the building permits. Mr.N.Nandakumara Menon, Senior Counsel submits on behalf of the Corporation that the Corporation will be prepared to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and having due regard to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (supra) and to any observation which may be made in this judgment. Under these circumstances, I quash Exts.P5, P6 and P7 and direct the first respondent-Corporation to hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders on the question of cancelling the building permits issued to the petitioner. While taking fresh decision as directed above, the Corporation shall have due regard to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (supra) and also by the observations contained in this judgment. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the W.P.C.No.34739/07 - 3 - Corporation within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE