Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SASANKALAL P.K. versus VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SASANKALAL P.K. v. VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 26556 of 2006(J) [2007] RD-KL 4816 (6 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26556 of 2006(J)

1. SASANKALAL P.K.,
... Petitioner

2. REETHA SASANKALAL,

Vs

1. VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE VARKALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :06/03/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 26556 OF 2006

Dated this the 6th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.B.S. Swathi Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.J.S. Ajith Kumar, Standing Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioners who applied for a building permit before the 1st respondent-Municipality is that by Ext.P4 the Municipality has rejected their application. The reason stated in Ext.P4 is that going by the plan, the proposed building is to be constructed on an area coming within the DTP scheme. Admittedly the DTP scheme has not been implemented in spite of the elapse of several years since the same was notified. I am of the view that the issue is covered by the principles laid down in Padmini V. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465] and the Supreme Court in Raju Jethmalani & others V.State of Maharashtra & others [(2005) 11 SCC 222]. Under these circumstance, I dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions and granting relief to the petitioner. The petitioner will submit undertaking before the 1st respondent- Municipality undertaking in the form of an affidavit stating very clearly that in case a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act WPC NO.26556/2006 2 is promulgated by the respondents within 18 months from the date of issuance of permit by the Municipality to the petitioner, the petitioner will surrender the building to be constructed on the strength of the permit without claiming any compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Once such an affidavit is received from the petitioner, the Municipality will issue permit to the petitioner provided the plan is otherwise in order. In other words, the proposal to acquire the property of the petitioner for implementation of the DTP scheme will not be a reason to reject the application for building permit. Ext.P4 is quashed so as to enable the Municipality to issue permit. Fresh orders on the permit application should be passed within two weeks of receiving the affidavit. It is made clear that even after the expiry period of 18 months noted above, if it becomes necessary for the respondents to acquire petitioners' property for any genuine public purpose they are free to do so. But under such a contingency, the petitioners will be entitled for adequate compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC NO.26556/2006 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.