IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5659 of 2008(W)
1. VINU KRISHNAN,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF
4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :25/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 5659 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
I have heard the submissions of Shri. V.Manu, learned counsel
for the petitioner and also those of Shri.Nandakumara Menon,
learned senior counsel for the Corporation and the learned
Government Pleader.
2. Shri.Manu submitted that Ext.P3 judgment has been
issued by this Court in respect of an adjacent property and the
petitioner therein is the petitioner’s neighbour. On going through
Ext.P3 it is seen that the Corporation in that case stopped
constructions on the basis of the building permit which had been
issued to the petitioner therein on the ground that the property is
covered by the Trivandrum Medical College Area Development
Scheme. In the present case the reason for cancellation of Ext.P1
is the existence of a proposal for establishment of medical staff
quarters. Though, going by Exts.P2 & P3, it would appear that
acquisition of properties in these cases are for different purposes, I
have no reason to doubt the correctness of the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that both these come under the
Medical College Development Scheme. Whatever that be, the issue
WP(C) No. 5659/2008
-2-
is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Padmini Vs.
State of Kerala, reported in 1999 (3) KLT 465. Hence, I am
inclined to grant relief similar to the relief which was given to the
petitioners in Ext.P3 especially since I am told that the properties
are situated near to each other. I direct the petitioner to submit an
undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Corporation
stating clearly that in the event of promulgation of a notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the
property in respect of which Ext.P1 building permit has been issued
within one year from today, the petitioner will surrender the
properties sought to be acquired as well as the building constructed
on the strength of Ext.P1 without claiming any compensation for
building. Once that affidavit is filed, Ext.P1 will revive and the
petitioner will have the permission to continue with the
construction. Considering the above direction, Ext.P2 is quashed
subject to the condition that the undertaking should be filed before
the Corporation.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
WP(C) No. 5659/2008
-3-
jg