IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34739 of 2007(I)
1. H.VASANTHAKUMAR.NO.26,NATESAN STREET
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :12/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.34739 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 12th February, 2008
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in this Writ Petition are Exts.P5, P6 and P7 by
which the Corporation has invoked Rule 16 of KMBR and cancelled the
building permit which had been issued to the petitioner for
construction of buildings. No counter affidavit is filed by any of the
respondents. Ext.P11 produced by the petitioner along with
I.A.No.765 of 2008 will show that no proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act have been initiated so far for acquisition of any portion
f the petitioner’s property for the construction of the road. The only
ground on which Rule 16 has been invoked is that as per
D.T.P.Scheme, there is a proposal for construction of the road
through the petitioner’s property. The issue according to me is
covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in
Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465) and the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra
[(2005) 11 S.C.C. 222]. In similar cases this court has cancelled the
orders similarly passed by the local authorities rejecting the permit
applications or orders cancelling the permits already issued on the
ground of existence of D.T.P.Scheme or proposal for road widening or
W.P.C.No.34739/07 – 2 –
proposal to acquire portion of the properties for public purposes on
condition that the party submit an undertaking before the local
authority stating that in the event of promulgation of a notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within a specified
period, the party will not be entitled for any compensation for the
constructions to be made on the basis of the building permits.
Mr.N.Nandakumara Menon, Senior Counsel submits on behalf of the
Corporation that the Corporation will be prepared to pass fresh orders
after hearing the petitioner and having due regard to the principles
laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Padmini v. State of
Kerala (supra) and to any observation which may be made in this
judgment. Under these circumstances, I quash Exts.P5, P6 and P7
and direct the first respondent-Corporation to hear the petitioner and
pass fresh orders on the question of cancelling the building permits
issued to the petitioner. While taking fresh decision as directed
above, the Corporation shall have due regard to the principles laid
down by the Division Bench of this court in Padmini v. State of
Kerala (supra) and also by the observations contained in this
judgment. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the
W.P.C.No.34739/07 – 3 –
Corporation within one month of receiving copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE