IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12665 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JANARDHANAN P.E., NO.1, CHERAT QUARTERS D.P.O.ROAD, MALAPPURAM. PERMANANT ADDRESS: PUTHIYA VEEDU, PATTANNUR, EDAYANNUR VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.BABU.S.NAIR, SC. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008 ALONG WITH W.P.C.NO.12666/08 & 12667/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).NOs.12665, 12666 & 12667 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT It is a common grievance which is voiced by the petitioners in these cases. The applications submitted by them for building permits were rejected by the Secretary of the Municipality on the ground that as per the town planning scheme, the properties have been ear marked for acquisition for residential purposes. It is conceded before me by the standing counsel for the Municipality Sri.Babu.S.Nair, who has taken notice on behalf of the Municipality that currently there are no proceedings existing for acquisition of these properties and that no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated. I find force in the submission of Sri.Kaleswaram Raj that the issue is covered by the judgment in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1993(3)KLT465). Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners to the following extent: Exts.P3 in all these three cases are quashed and the Municipality is directed to consider Ext.P2 plans submitted by the petitioners in these three WPC.No.12665,12666 & 12667 of 2008 2 cases without being influenced in any manner by the ear marking of these properties for acquisition for residential purpose as per the town planning scheme, provided the petitioners file undertakings in the form of affidavits 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 their property within one year from today, they will not claim any compensation for the construction which may be put up by them on the strength of the permit to be issued to them pursuant to this judgment. It is always to open to the Municipality to acquire the properties for any genuine public purpose. But if the acquisitions on the basis of any notification issued after one year, petitioners will be entitled for compensation not only for the land but also for the buildings. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.12665,12666 & 12667 of 2008 2