IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28380 of 2009(N)
1. G.SUNIL,SAROJINI NIVAS,PUNNATHANATU
... Petitioner
2. RAJALAKSHMI, SAROJINI NIVAS,
Vs
1. VILAPPIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :10/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
.......................
W.P.(C).28380/2009
.......................
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners jointly own a parcel of land, 7.40 Ares
in extent situated in R.Sy. No.218/2 of Vilappil Village.
They applied to the Vilappil Grama Panchayat for a
building permit to put up a residential building therein.
The said application was rejected by Ext.P4 order on the
ground that there is a proposal to acquire the land situated
in R.Sy. No.218/2 for the purpose of a Primary Health
Centre. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order by filing
W.P.(C).No.33586 of 2007. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered
on 14.12.2007, this Court held that as no notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued,
the Panchayat should reconsider the application for grant
of building permit and issue a permit if the application is
otherwise in order, on the petitioners filing an affidavit
before the Secretary of the Vilappil Grama Panchayat
undertaking that in the event of a notification being issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within one
year from 14.12.2007 the petitioners will not claim
W.P.(C).28380/09
2
compensation for the building put up by them on the basis
of the permit.
2. The petitioners did not file such an affidavit and
therefore, the application for permit was not reconsidered
and orders passed. Thereafter the petitioners submitted
another application, Ext.P7, which was received by the
Secretary of the Vilappil Grama Panchayat. This writ
petition is filed aggrieved by the delay on the part of the
respondents in processing and disposing of the said
application. The petitioners contend that though they did
not file an affidvit as directed by this Court in Ext.P5
judgment, as the period of one year stipulated in Ext.P5
judgment has expired, and as no notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued, till date
the first respondent is bound to consider Ext.P7
application submitted by them on 23.7.2009 and to take a
decision thereon.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent Panchayat submits that till date no notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been
issued in respect of the land situated in R.Sy. No.218/2 of
Vilappil village. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that such being the situation, in the light of the
W.P.(C).28380/09
3
law laid down by this Court in Padmini v. State of
Kerala (1993 (3) KLT 485) and by the Apex Court in
Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005 11 SCC
222), the first respondent will necessarily have to
consider the petitioners’ application and pass orders
thereon in accordance with law.
In the light of the admitted fact that as on date, no
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
has been issued in respect of the petitioners’ lands, I
dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first
respondent Panchayat to consider the application for the
building permit submitted by the petitioners on 23.7.2009
and to pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event
within one month from the date on which the petitioners
produce a certified copy of this judgment before the
Secretary, Vilappil Grama Panchayat. It is clarified that if
within the said period of one month no notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act is issued, the petitioners’
application for building permit shall not be rejected on the
sole ground that there is a proposal to acquire their land.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge
mrcs