IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21351 of 2007(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VANIYAM VALAPPIL KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 84, S/O.KANNAN, LEELA NIVAS, THRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA, PIN - 670 141. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, ADV. SMT.B.RASHMI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THALIPARAMBA MUNCIPALITY, TALIPARAMBA.P.O. 5. VADI RAVI, CHAIRMAN, THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, THALIPARAMBA. R1 TO 3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS.24063/2007, 24423/2007 34133/2007 & 26409/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21351/2007-P: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LAY OUT PLAN OF SURVEY NO. RS NO.52/4,52/6,52/7 AND 52/8. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BA 261/2000-2000 DTD. 20/10/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BA 321/94-95 DTD. 22/12/1994. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BA 12/05-06 DTD. 12/05/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. B.5018/04 DTD. 21/04/07. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DTD. 26/05/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE AGENDA OF MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL MEETING DTD. 18/02/2003. EXT.P.8(1-4): COPY OF THE AGENDA OF MUNICIPALITY SHOWING APPROVAL OF NEW ALIGNMENT DTD. 29/07/2005. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 460/06 LSGD DTD. 17/02/2006. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE AGENDA DTD. 07/03/2006. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 06/06/2007. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY FROM TAHSILDAR DTD. 20/06/2007. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER FORM 4 (B) DTD. 31/05/2007. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE KEY PLAN SHOWING EXISTING BUS STAND. EXT.P.15: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 30/07/2005. EXT.P.16: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 30/07/2005. EXT.P.17: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 30/07/2005. EXT.P.18: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 27/11/2006. EXT.P.19: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 04/01/2007. EXT.P.20: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 09/02/2007. W.P.(C). NO.21351/2007-P: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE REPREENTATIONS/COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY TALIPARAMBA MERCHANT ASSOCIATION DTD. 29/06/2003. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 23240/2002 DTD. 14/08/2002. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). 34053/2003 DTD. 24/03/2004. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 26402/2005 DTD. 06/09/2005. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 15591/2005 DTD. 22/09/2005. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J. ================================ W.P.(C)Nos. 21351, 24423, 24063, 34133 and 26409 OF 2007 ================================= Dated this the 28th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in all these writ petitions are directed against the notification issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.4.2007 which is marked as Ext.P5 in Writ Petition No.21351/2007. The same notification is produced in other writ petitions also. The facts will be referred to as stated in Writ Petition No.21351/2007. 2. The 4th respondent Taliparamba Municipality passed Ext.P7 resolution as early as on 22.2.2003 to request the government to acquire land for the purpose of construction of a new bus stand, taxi stand etc. Subsequently the Municipality passed Ext.P8 resolution on 29.7.2005 to acquire 75 cents more for the purpose of construction of the bus stand etc. Government accorded administrative sanction under Section 17(4). Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer issued the notification under Section 4(1) invoking Section 17(4) of the Act also. The W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 2 petitioners are challenging the notification under Section 4(1) read with 17(4) of the Act. It was contended that at present at Taliparamba Municipality, there are three bus stands. There is allegation of mala fides also. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Municipality had filed detailed counter affidavits denying all the allegations levelled against them. It is contended that Taliparamba Municipality has fast development but lacks infrastructure for its development. It is contended that as per 2001 census more than 450 buses are conducting service through the town. 100 taxis, 500 auto rickshaws, 150 lorries, mini lorries, tempos etc. were also to be parked. It is also contended that the existing bus stand is not sufficient to accommodate all buses. The mala fides alleged are also denied. It was contended that various persons and organizations have filed writ petitions before this Court to compel the Municipality to establish sufficient parking space and also bus stands. That is the reason why the Municipality was compelled to make a requisition to the government to invoke urgent clauses. The 4th respondent has produced Exts.R4(b) to W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 3 R4(e) judgments before this court in various writ petitions. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits reiterating the averments in the writ petition. It is contended that the bus stand at Kakkathodu can be eazily utilized for parking autorickshaws, jeeps and other vehicles. It is also contended that Kakkathodu bus stand and newly constructed bus stand is linked with road and well connected and if at all the Municipality needs more space, it can very well extend the road by connecting Kakkathodu and newly constructed bus stand. It is also contended that if the Municipality proceeded with acquisition, it will have to spend huge amounts. For the acquisition of the land alone, the Municipality will have to spent more than 7 crore rupees for the construction of a new bus stand and it may have to borrow huge amounts. The first resolution was passed on 22.2.2003. Subsequently on 29.7.2005, the properties owned by 11 persons which is having an area of 159.25 cents was excluded. In the year 2000, 75 cents was added to the said property. According to the counsel for the Municipality, there were valid reasons for exclusion of those lands because the plots exempted were having W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 4 residential buildings and it was not absolutely essential. It is also submitted that unless the 75 cents subsequently added is also acquired, the purpose will not be served. I do not think it is necessary to consider the matter on its merits at this stage. I am of the view that since the matter is pending from 2003 onwards, it is only just and proper to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A in respect of the petitioners in this writ petition alone. Union of India and others v Mukesh Hans(2004(8) SCC 4), the apex court held that the mere existence of an urgency or unforeseen emergency not by itself is sufficient. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the view that invocation of the urgency clause in respect of the petitioners are to be quashed and they are to be permitted to file their objections to 4(1) notification within a time frame. The Land Acquisition officer shall consider the same and take a decision, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of filing of the objections with due notice to the petitioners. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 5 The emergency clause invoked in respect of the petitioners in these writ petitions alone is quashed. I make it clear that I am not quashing the same in respect of the other persons and 5A enquiry will be confined to the petitioners in these petitions alone. Petitioners are given two weeks time from the date of receipt of the judgments to raise all their objections before the Land Acquisition officer, who shall consider the same and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of filing of the objection with due notice to the Municipality as well as the petitioners. Land acquisition proceedings will stand stayed until the land acquisition officer hears and dispose of the objections. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE css/