IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 20052 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O THORAPPA KUNJEEDU, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT: --------------- MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== W.P.(C) NO. 20052 OF 2008 - K ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. By this order, the respondents had rejected Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for a building permit. The reasons stated in Ext.P3 are mainly that the land in question is a paddy field and that the area is covered by a master plan. 2. In so far as the contention that it is a paddy field is concerned, petitioner relies on Ext.P4, proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, granting permit for its conversion in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In so far as the contention that the area is covered by a master plan is concerned, petitioner contends that though a master plan has been prepared, nothing has been done in pursuance thereof. Learned counsel is also relying on various judgments rendered by this court including the one in WP(C) No.4962/08, where relief in respect of the respondent Municipality itself has been granted by this court in identical circumstances. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, I see no justification to decline WPC 20052/08 :2 : the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P3 will stand quashed. The petitioner is directed to produce Ext.P4 before the Secretary of the Municipality and on such production , the Secretary shall inspect the site in question and if he is satisfied that the order is in relation to the site proposed by the petitioner, he shall pass fresh orders on Ext.P2 in the light of the result of his inspection. It is directed that orders on the request for building permit shall be considered irrespective of the nomenclature used in regard to the nature of the land. 4. It is also directed that the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent Municipality undertaking in clear terms that if notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued within one year from today, he will not be entitled to compensation for the construction that he undertakes on the strength of the permit which is to be issued in pursuance to this judgment. However, it is also clarified that even beyond that period, it will be open to the Municipality to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the land, but however, the same will be subject to payment of compensation as is admissible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp