IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1825 of 2007(P)
1. K.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :26/02/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 1825 of 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this 26th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Standing Counsel for
the Municipality, submits that the Greater Cochin Development
Authority has included a portion of the property upon which the
building is now constructed by the petitioner in the alignment of
the Edappally – Muvattupuzha Road and that was the reason
why the Municipality issued Ext.P6 notice. But as rightly
submitted by Sri.K.T.Thomas, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, no notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act and much less any declaration under Section 6 of
the Act has so far been promulgated for acquisition of any
portion of the property in question. Moreover, the reason
mentioned in Ext.P6 for revoking the permit is not one of the
reasons envisaged by Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipalities
Building Rules.
2. Obviously there is no allegation that the approved plan
has been violated while carrying out the construction. The
WPC No.1825/2007 2
principles laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Padmini
v. State of Kerala ( 1999 (3) KLT 465) and by the Supreme
Court in Raju S.Jethamalani and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others (2005) 11 Supreme Court 222 will
apply in this case also. Ext.P6, accordingly, is quashed and
there will be a direction to the respondents to complete the
proceedings for issuance of occupancy certificate and to number
the building constructed by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 permit
expeditiously at their earliest and at any rate within one month of
receiving a copy of this judgment and of the petitioner filing an
affidavit to the effect that if a notification under Section 4 (1) of
the Land Acquisition Act is issued within one year of the permit
for acquisition of any portion of the property, he will surrender
the property without making any claims. It is however clarified
that if there is any variation from Ext.P3, it will be open to the
Municipality to take appropriate action. It is also clarified that
this judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent or
the State from acquiring any portion of the petitioner’s property
even after a period of one year for any genuine public purposes
in which case the petitioner will be entitled for adequate
WPC No.1825/2007 3
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk