IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 36662 of 2007(M)
1. P.K.MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :01/01/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36662 OF 2007
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Sri.T.A.Shaji, Standing Counsel for the Municipality seeks time to
file counter affidavit. But, since I feel that the issue in this case is
covered by judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Padmini v.
State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and that of Supreme Court in Raju
Jethmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra & others [(2005) 11
SCC 222], I am not inclined to grant time for filing counter affidavit.
Sri.Shaji submits that the Municipality genuinely requires the property in
question and other properties for constructing a shopping complex. But,
as rightly noticed by the Government in Ext.P3, though the proposal to
acquire the property is in the air for long till this moment no notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated for
acquisition of properties. Under these circumstances, I quash Ext.P4
and dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions:
The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit before the 2nd
respondent Municipality undertaking in very clear terms that 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,
within a period of one year from today, the petitioner will not be entitled
WPC No. 36662 of 2007
2
for any compensation for the building which he may put up on the
strength of the building permit to be issued to him by the Municipality.
The petitioner will file such affidavit within three weeks from today and
upon receiving that affidavit, the Municipality will consider the plan
submitted by the petitioner for approval and will approve the same if it is
otherwise in order. In other words, existence of the proposal to build a
shopping complex by the Municipality will not be a reason for rejecting
the plan. It is made clear that even after the expiry of the above
mentioned one year period, this judgment will not stand in the way of
the Municipality acquiring the property of the petitioner for a genuine
public purpose in which case the petitioner will be entitled for adequate
compensation as admissible under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also
made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the
Municipality in challenging Ext.P4 in appropriate proceedings, if so
advised.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No. 36662 of 2007
3