IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6356 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL VAHAB K.K., A2, MALABAR CASTLE, U.K.S.ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. BY SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC FOR THE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 6356/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 17/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No. 21901/2007 // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6356 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Learned standing counsel for the Corporation seeks time to get instructions from the Corporation. I am not inclined to grant further time since it is seen that the issue is similar to one covered by Ext.P2 judgment and several other judgments delivered in like situations. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the Corporation by which the Corporation rejected his application for a building permit for construction of a building in his property in Sy.No74/1 of Koottooly Village. The reason for rejecting the permit application is that the plot comes within the property proposed for establishing a sports complex after acquiring the same. Obviously, till this moment no notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated at the instance of the Corporation for acquiring any portion of the petitioner’s property. The fact situation is similar to the one which obtained in the judgment of this Court in Padmini Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1999(3) KLT 465. The fact situation is also comparable to a certain extent to those which obtained in the judgment of the Full Bench of WP(C) No. 6356/2008 -2- this Court in Francis Vs. Chalakkudy Municipality, reported in 1999 (3) KLT 560 and that of the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in 2005 (11) SCC 222. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Ext.P2 judgment, which according to me was passed by this Court in comparable situations. 3. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and the submissions addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel for either side, I am of the view that relief can be granted to the petitioner subjecting him to conditions. The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit clearly undertaking that in the event of the Corporation facilitating promulgation of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, within a period of one year from today for acquisition of any portion of his property, he will not claim any compensation for the building put up by him on the strength of the permit, which the Corporation issues to him. Once such as affidavit is filed, the Corporation will re-consider the plan submitted by the petitioner and pass fresh orders. If the plan is otherwise in order, the Corporation will approve the plan and issue permit. In WP(C) No. 6356/2008 -3- other words, existence of the proposal to acquire the property for establishment of sports complex or any other programme connected to the establishment of Sports Complex shall not be a ground for rejecting the plan. It is made clear that even after expiry of the one year period mentioned herein above, this judgment will not stand in the way of acquiring any portion of petitioner’s property for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisition is on the basis of a notification under Section 4(1) issued after one year from today, the petitioner will be entitled for adequate compensation for the building also. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg