IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 19464 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.N. BABY, W/O.M.C. JOSE, AGED 52, CHAITHANYA, VETTANCHERRY PARAMBU, ARUKIZHAYA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR(B/O) GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 19464 OF 2008 P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P2. By Ext. P2, on the sole reason of pendency of a DTP Scheme, the building permit sought for by the petitioner by Ext. P1, has been declined. The petitioner contends that apart from framing the scheme nothing has been done by the Municipality and therefore there is absolutely no justification for rejecting his application for building permit. He is also relying on Ext. P4 a common judgment rendered by this Court dealing with an identical situation concerning the Malappuram Municipality. 2. In view of the similarity of the facts involved I see no reason to take a view different from what is taken in Ext. P4. Therefore, Ext. P2 will stand quashed and the Municipality is directed to consider Ext. P1 submitted by the petitioner without being influenced in any manner by the ear marking of the properties for implementation of the DTP Scheme. It is, however, subject to W.P.(C) No. 19464OF 2008 - 2 - the petitioner's filing 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 his property within one year from today he 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 this judgment. It is clarified that it is always open to the Municipality to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisition on the basis of any notification issued after one year, petitioner will be entitled to compensation not only for the land but also for the building constructed in pursuance to the permit granted. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-