K.Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 29 March, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 356 of 2007(R)


1. K.JAYARAJAN,KUNDUR HOUSE,CIVIL STATION
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SUNDARSHANAN,KUNDUR HOUSE,
3. K.PRAKASHAN,KUNDUR HOUSE,CIVIL STATION
4. K.DEVARAJAN,KUNDUR HOUSE,CIVIL STATION

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CALICUT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY

3. THE CALICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,OFFICE OF THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :29/03/2007

 O R D E R
                         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

                    ----------------------------------

                        R.P.NO. 356  of    2007

                    ----------------------------------

               Dated this    29th day of  March, 2007


                                  O R D E R

Heard Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned Standing Counsel

for the Calicut Development Authority and Sri.Prabhanandan, the

learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut Corporation.

2. Notwithstanding the persuasive submissions were made

by Sri.Chandramohan Das, I do not think that there is any

warrant for review my judgment, wherein the petitioners are

directed to file undertaking in the form of an affidavit in the wake

of the assertion by the counsel for the Development Authority

and the Corporation that there is a proposal to acquire the

property of the petitioners in implementation of the dream city

project.

I have considered the principles laid down by the Supreme

R.P. No.356/2007 2

Court in Raju Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra

& others (2005 11 SCC 222) and imposed condition that an

affidavit shall be filed by the petitioners to the effect that in the

event of the land being acquired within a period of 15 months

from the date of issuance of permit by the 2nd respondent, they

will surrender the property together with the building without

claiming any compensation for the building constructed on the

strength of the permit. In other words, what this court has

indicated is that the petitioners were taking risk in the matter of

constructing the building. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that if the judgment is allowed to operate, the

petitioners will not be getting even compensation for the land in

the event of acquisition within 15 months. It is clarified that this

court has only stated that the petitioners will not be entitled for

any compensation for the building in the event of acquisition

within 15 months.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Judge

dpk