IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6356 of 2008(F)
1. ABDUL VAHAB K.K., A2,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANJAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :10/03/2008
O R D E R
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