M/S.Leader Properties & Estates … vs The Kozhikkode Corporation on 4 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10166 of 2008(I)


1. M/S.LEADER PROPERTIES & ESTATES (P)LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KOZHIKKODE CORPORATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :04/04/2008

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                    ----------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) NO. 10166 of 2008
                    ----------------------------------
             Dated this the 4th       day of April , 2008

                              JUDGMENT

Sri.P.V.Kunikhikrishnan opposes the prayers in this writ petition.

He drew my attention to the judgment of this court in Sayeesh

Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 1027) and submits that

even the Government does not have power to allow zonal exemption.

Per contra, Sri.Babu S.Nair drew my attention to the judgment of this

court in Franchis v. Chalakkudy Municipality (1999(3) KLT 560).

He also drew my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 465) and

also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani &

others v. State of Maharashtra & others ( 2005 (11) SCC 222).

The development plan has not been implemented in the Corporation

though the same had been in existence for several decades, so

submits the learned counsel. It is seen from Ext.P1 that apart from

the ground that if the permit is declined for zoning violation in terms

of the sanctioned DTP scheme the ground that the NOC from the

Public Works Department has not been produced is also raised.

Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

WPC No.10166/2008 2

petitioner will be able to produce NOC from the Public Works

Department if time is given.

2. Under the above circumstances, following the view taken by

me in writ petitions raising similar grounds, I dispose of this writ

petition in the following terms;

i). Ext.P1 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to file an

affidavit before the respondent Corporation stating unconditionally that

they will not claim any compensation for the construction put up by

them in the event of any notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land

Acquisition Act being promulgated for acquisition of any portion of the

petitioner’s property for industrial or any other purposes within a

period of one year from the date of filing the affidavit.

ii). The petitioner will produce NOC from the Public Works

Department.

Iii). If both the conditions are complied with, the Corporation

will reconsider the plan and grant approval to the same if the plan is

otherwise in order.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE

JUDGE
dpk

WPC No.10166/2008 3