MUHAMMED SUBAIR Vs. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially, the petitioner was granted Exhibit P1 building permit, but later it was cancelled through Exhibit P2 order. Impugning Exhibit P2 order of cancellation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent Corporation has initially granted Exhibit P1 building permit after following the due process. But, later cancelled it through Exhibit P2 order. He has contended that ostensibly what weighed with the authorities to issue Exhibit P2 order of cancellation is a proposed acquisition, regarding which steps are yet to be taken.

(3.) Placing reliance on Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality, 2009 3 KerLT 92, Padmini v. State of Kerala,1999 2 KerLT 465 and Giri v. State of Kerala, 2013 2 KerLT 443, the learned counsel has contended that substantial property rights of the petitioner, which have been constitutionally recognised, cannot be defeated on a mere proposal on the part of the authorities to acquire the said property. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to allow the writ petition.