IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22258 of 2008(Y)
1. MADHUSUDHANAN.T, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. SREELEKHA, W/O.MADHUSUDHANAN.T,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM.
3. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321,
= = =22304 = = = = = = = = = = =
& 22396 OF 2008
= = =
Dated this the 31st day of July 2008
J U D G M E N T
The building permits applied for by the petitioners in these
cases have been rejected.
2. The orders of rejection have been marked as Ext. P3 in W.P.
(C) No. 22304/08, Exts. P3 and P4 in W.P.(C) No. 22258/08 and Ext.
P2 in W.P.(C) No. 22321/08. The only reason stated is that the plots
involved are included in a scheme framed by the respondent
Municipality. Petitioners complain that although a scheme was
framed as stated by the Municipality long ago, the Municipality has
not done anything pursuant thereto. It is submitted that in identical
cases, permits have been granted and this includes those permits
which were granted in the light of the various judgments rendered
by this Court. They are also relying on the judgments of this Court
in Padmini v. State of Kerala {1993(3) KLT 465} and W.P.(C) Nos.
12665, 12666 and 12667 of 2008 in support of their respective
W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321 OF 2008 etc.
-2-
contentions.
3. On a close reading of the writ petitions I am satisfied that
the cases put forward by the petitioners are identical to those cases
which have been dealt with in the aforesaid judgments and
therefore there is absolutely no reason to take a view different from
what was taken in the aforesaid cases.
4. Accordingly Exts. P3, P3 and P4, and P2 in W.P.(C) Nos.
22304, 22258 and 22321/08 respectively are quashed. It is
directed that the Municipality shall reconsider the applications and
plans submitted by the petitioners in these cases without being
influenced in any manner by the earmarking of the properties under
the town planning scheme, provided the petitioners file
undertakings in the form of affidavits before the Secretary of the
respondent Municipality stating unconditionally that in the event of
any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act being
issued 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
W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321 OF 2008 etc.
-3-
clarified that it is always open to the Municipality to acquire the
properties for any genuine public purpose, but if such 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
structures put up by them.
5. In so far as W.P.(C) No. 22396/08 is concerned, Ext. P2 is
the impugned order by which application for building permit has
been rejected based on the inclusion of the land in the town
planning scheme and for the further reason that the land in
question is classified as a paddy field. In so far as the ground of
inclusion in the town planning scheme is concerned my conclusion
in the foregoing paragraphs will apply to the petitioner herein also.
6. In so far as the statement in Ext.P2 that the land in
question is a paddy field is concerned, petitioner is relying on Ext.
P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer permitting
conversion under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
In view of Ext. P1, I direct that the Secretary of the Municipality shall
inspect the land in question and if he is satisfied that Ext. P1
pertains to the land in respect of which the permit is applied for, the
W.P.(C) Nos. 22258, 22321 OF 2008 etc.
-4-
application shall be reconsidered in the manner as ordered in the
previous paragraphs. Petitioner shall also file an undertaking as
directed above.
7. Needless to say, in all other respects, the Secretary shall
also ensure that the applications made are in compliance with the
provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-