Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K.GIREESHKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K.GIREESHKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 16551 of 2007(U) [2007] RD-KL 9460 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16551 of 2007(U)

1. K.K.GIREESHKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE SECRETARY,

4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SIVAJI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :05/06/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.16551 OF 2007

Dated this the 7th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. By Ext.P2, respondent Corporation has rejected the application for permission to construct building on two grounds. First ground is that it is against the scheme (Ext.P1). Second ground is that there is a proposal to widen the road. As far as the first objection is concerned, according to the petitioner, it is covered by Ext.P3 judgment following the Division Bench decision of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala ( 1999(3)KLT 465).

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader also.

3. There is no dispute by the learned counsel for the Corporation that as far as the first objection is concerned, it should WPC No.16551/07 2 be governed by Ext.P3 judgment and the second objection is concerned, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in 1999(3)KLT 465. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 is quashed and there will be a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner if the plan is otherewise in order on condition that the petitioner submits an undertaking in the form of an affidavit stating clearly that if a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is promulgated within one year of issuance of the building permit, the petitioner will surrender the property including the building constructed without claiming any compensation for the building. It is made further clear that even thereafter if the Corporation or the Government wants to acquire the property for any genuine public purpose, this judgment will not stand in the way of doing so and under such event the respondents will give adequate compensation to the WPC No.16551/07 3 petitioner. In considering the application, the third respondent will take note of the decision of this court in 1999(3)KLT 465. A decision will be taken by the third respondent in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.M.JOSEPH

JUDGE

sv. WPC No.16551/07 4


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.