IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20867 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ISLAHIYA SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, VARANGODE, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. DR.V.AHAMMED, S/O.V.MAMMADU, AGED 72 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT: --------------- THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20867 OF 2008 (H) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext. P2, an order passed by the respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for building permit. Two reasons are stated. One is that there is a master plan covering the area in question and the other is that the land in question is a reclaimed land. 2. In so far as the statement that the land in question is a reclaimed one is concerned, petitioner submits that by Ext. P1 order the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna permitted him to reclaim the land exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In so far as the pendency of the master plan is concerned, it is contended that in respect of identical plots, rejection of building permits have been interfered by this Court and Ext. P4 judgment is relied on in support of this contention. 3. I heard the Standing Counsel who entered appearance on W.P.(C) No. 20867 OF 2008 -2- behalf of the respondent Municipality also. 4. Having regard to the facts as above, I think, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Municipality in the light of Exts. P1 order of the RDO and P4 judgment of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext. P2. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce Ext. P1 before the Municipality and on its receipt, the Secretary shall inspect the land and verify as to whether Ext. P1 is in relation to the land in respect of which application has been made by the petitioner. If it is found to be so, the request made by the petitioner shall be reconsidered in the light of Ext. P4 judgment and other judgments rendered by this Court in identical circumstances where relief has been granted. 6. It is directed that the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the respondent Municipality undertaking that in the event that the Government issues a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the acquisition of any portion of the property within one year of receiving copy of this judgment, the petitioner will not be entitled for any compensation for the construction that he may make on the strength of the building permit that is to be W.P.(C) No. 20867 OF 2008 -3- issued in pursuance to this judgment. However, it is clarified that even after the period of one year specified above, it will be open to the Municipality to initiate acquisition proceedings should an occasion arises, but however, on payment of compensation that is admissible in law. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-