Disposed

V.Subramanniyan v. Thalassery Municipality

Kerala HC8 Aug 2007WP(C)/11695/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a road permit application. The Court conditioned the setting aside of the rejection order on the petitioner providing an undertaking to waive compensation if acquisition proceedings commence within the scheme's validity period.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 set aside and petitioner's application reconsidered subject to an undertaking to waive compensation if acquisition proceedings commence before the scheme expires.

V.Subramanniyan Vs Thalassery Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2007 / 17TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 11695 of 2007(P)

PETITIONER:

V.SUBRAMANNIYAN,HOUSE NO.20/411,JUBILEE ROAD,THALASSERY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THALASSERY.

¶14

SECRETARY,THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY THALASSERY.

¶15

MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

¶19

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 11695 OF 2007

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2007

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Citing the existence of the scheme which came into force in the year 1988 as per which it is proposed to have a road, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permit stands rejected vide Ext.P2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Petitioner relies on Ext.P1 judgment. He also refers to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.28206/06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Padmini v. State of Kerala ( 1999(3)KLT 465).

¶25

I heard learned counsel for the respondent also. Second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Counsel for the respondents submits that there is a distinction in this case and the facts of Padmini's case. He also refers to Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and also the definition of

“road'.

WPC No.11695/07

Having heard counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶30

If the petitioner files an undertaking before the respondentMunicipality that in case acquisition proceedings are commenced during the validity of the scheme which is to expire on 26/05/2008, compensation need not be paid to the petitioner and petitioner will facilitate free surrender of the portion in question without demanding compensation, Ext.P2 shall stand set aside and the application of the petitioner for permit will be considered and appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing the undertaking. Even after the expiry of the scheme, it is made clear that it will be open to the respondent to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act, in which case compensation will have to be paid.

¶31

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶32

sv.

¶33

WPC No.11695/07 3

V.Subramanniyan v. Thalassery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Subramanniyan v. Thalassery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.Vishwanath Vs Nattakom Grama Panchayat

Lali Kunjumon Vs Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayat

B.K.Rappai Vs the Manalur Grama Panchayath

Abdul Jabbar Vs Special Grade Secretary

Regi Jose Vs Muncipal Chairperson

P.J.Baby Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta