IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30607 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- T.N.VEERARAGHAVAN, S/O.T.V.NARAYANA IYER AGED 59 YEARS, 22/148,APARNA,THIRUNELLAI P.O., PALAKKAD 678 020. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.VENKATAKRISHNAN SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER), PALAKKAD. 3. THE PALAKKAD MUNCIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 4. THE PALAKKAD MINCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MINCIPALITY. 6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. WPC : 30607 OF 2007 : 2 : 8. K.A.AJEEM, W/O.LATE V.M.KADERSHAH, C/O.DR.M.K.MOHAMMED IQBAL, 11/1179,T.B.ROAD,PALAKKAD. ADDL. 9. A.RAMASWAMY, EX.MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, STREET NO.III, VENNAKKARA, NOORNI P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R9 AS PER ORDER DT.29.11.07 IN IA NO.15081/07) ADDL. 10. C.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.LATE KRISHNANUNNI, AGED 35 YEARS, COUNCILOR, WARD NO.14, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT SREE MALAVEEYAM, AYYAPURAM, PALAKKAD. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R10 AS PER ORDER DT.29.11.07 IN IA NO.15834/07) R4 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.APPU P.S. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR R9 & R10 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI R1 TO R2, R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, ALONG WITH WP(C) No. 26488/2007 & WP(C) No.35495/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.26488, 30607 & 35495 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T These three writ petitions are filed challenging the resolution passed by the Palakkad Municipality by which it was resolved to request the Government for acquiring 1.8574 hectares of land, comprised in Ward-4, Block 15, Survey Nos.838 Part, 837 C-2, 837 C-I, 837 2B-II, 837 2B-III, 840/1A, 840 Part etc. The resolution was passed on 9.8.2007. The Municipality had set apart an amount of Rs.40 lakhs for acquiring the above stated land. On 9.10.2007, the Municipality had requested the Government to accord administrative sanction to acquire the land invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. The details in required form, and the feasibility certificate were also attached along with the requisition. On receipt of the same, Government had informed the Municipality as per letter No.68017/R.C.1/2007/LSD, dated 14.11.2007, and that reasons for invoking urgency clause were not stated in the requisition. The probable value of the land to be acquired was fixed as Rs.7,80,00,000/= lakhs, but the Municipality has set apart only an amount of Rs.40 lakhs. The Municipality was told that in case urgency W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 2 clause is to be invoked, the Municipality will have to deposit 80% of the value of land, and whether the Municipality is prepared to deposit 80% of the land value with the Collector, as a condition precedent for invoking Section 17(4) of the Act. On 24.11.2007, as per letter No. P.W.D.U6-8875/2007, the Municipality had informed the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government that the proposal for acquisition was pending for the last so many years, and on an earlier occasion, when steps were taken for acquisition, owners of the land approached this Court and that was the reason why the Municipality had decided to request the Government to invoke the urgency clause. The Municipality had also informed the Government that on that year's budget, an amount of Rs.40 lakhs alone was set apart for acquisition, and at the time of preparation of the budget, the Municipality could not anticipate the actual amount that may be required for the acquisition of the land. It was also informed that the Town Surveyor, taking into account of the consideration stated in the sale deed during the year 2005-06 had fixed Rs.7 Crore 80 Lakhs as the land value, and it may not be possible for the Municipality to raise that much amount in the W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 3 year 2007-08, and hence, it is not necessary to invoke urgency clause. The amount necessary for the acquisition will be set apart in the budget for the year 2008-09. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that from 1993 onwards, this proposal for acquisition for a lorry stand is hanging on their heads as Democlic's sword, and in view of that difficulty, they are unable to make any construction or deal with the land or to make any improvements in the land. It is submitted that on an earlier occasion, some of the land owners filed writ petition, W.P.(C) No.28945/2006, and at that time, this Court quashed clause 3 of the Development Certificate, which was marked as Ext.P3 in that writ petition, with effect from 31.3.2007. The Municipality was permitted to take action for issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before 31.3.2007. The Municipality filed a petition for extending the time limit fixed for issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, on 24.8.2007, this Court issued a clarification to the effect that the judgment will not stand in the way of Municipality requesting the Government for acquisition of the properties in question W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 4 for any genuine public purpose. The grievance of the petitioners is that in view of that clarification, the embargo imposed by the judgment was taken away and hence the Municipality had passed a subsequent resolution which is now under challenge. 3. In W.P.(C) No.35495/2007, a stranger had filed a petition to get himself impleaded in that petition. He had alleged that on 14.1.1993, the Municipality had passed a resolution to acquire two acre and 26 cents of land comprised in some other survey numbers situated on the side of by-pass road, and that acquisition was stayed by the Government. But subsequently, no steps were taken by the Municipality to get that stay vacated till date. It is submitted that for the past 14 years, the citizens in that locality are prevented from making any improvements or dealing with lands, which creates hardships and difficulties to the ordinary people living in that locality. So, they prayed that present resolution may be quashed. 4. Adv. Sri.V.Chitambaresh, who is appearing for the Municipality had submitted that this proposal to construct a lorry stand was not a new one. In fact, it started as early as in 1984. It is W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 5 submitted that as per the request of the Palakkad Development Authority, the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre, (for short 'NATPAC'), Trivandrum, conducted a study and submitted a report on the traffic management plan, in Palakkad town, as early as on 30.4.2004. One of the agenda in the item was to construct a lorry stand. Accordingly, steps were taken, but for various reasons, Municipality was unable to get the necessary land. Hence, the project could not be implemented. It is submitted that again a very detailed study was prepared by the Palakkad Development Authority in the year 1996, and the construction of a lorry stand at Manjakulam was given priority. The study revealed that lack of proper lorry stand was causing very serious problems at Big Bazar area and recommended a location near to or adjacent to the Big Bazar may be acquired for construction of a lorry stand. It is submitted that for the construction of a lorry stand, the total cost estimated was Rs.192 lakhs at that time. It was resolved to include the lorry stand as the 4th item in the first priority plan. That is how earlier requisition was happened to be issued. It is submitted that that acquisition could not be proceeded with because of the fact that that area happened to be part of residential-cum-shopping area. It is submitted that in view of the W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 6 Detailed Town Planning scheme prepared, the Municipality will be able to construct a lorry stand only at a place earmarked for that purpose, and that is the reason why this particular area was selected. I do not propose to go into the rival contentions raised by the petitioners, as well as the Municipality, because it is too early to consider the merits of those contentions at this stage. But the fact remains that at least from year 1996 onwards, owners of the land in this particular area are prevented from effecting improvements in the property. Because of the inclusion of the area, they are not in a position to deal with the property including sale of the same. This Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that at least for immediate necessaries, a person may be compelled to sell a portion of his land, such as for conducting a marriage ceremony of his daughter etc. Normally no ordinary man will purchase a land which is always under threat of acquisition for a public purpose. I am of the considered view that there must be a finality for every action. As I have already stated, this threatened acquisition is hanging like a Democlic's sword over the heads of number of ordinary persons. So, I am of the view that instead of W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 7 considering the merits of the claim at this stage, these writ petitions can be disposed of by fixing a time limit within which a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is to be issued. 5. It is pointed out by Adv. Sri.V.Chitambaresh that to acquire the land for the Muncipality, the Municipality will have to obtain prior sanction from the Government under Section 2(15)(1) of the Municipalities Act. The Municipality had already addressed the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Trivandrum, on 9.10.2007, and that must be treated as a request seeking prior sanction to acquire land for a public purpose. Since the Municipality had decided to withdraw its request to invoke urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, I do not think, any administrative sanction is necessary for this matter. Even if such an administrative sanction is necessary, appropriate orders either according sanction or rejecting the same shall also be passed, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the Government, and communicate that decision to the Municipality. If necessary, sanction under the Municipality Act and Land Acquisition Act are accorded, the Municipality shall file a requisition before the District W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 8 Collector, Palakkad, who is the competent authority, to invoke the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Such requisition shall be filed within one month from the date of receipt of sanction, if any, accorded by the Government. 6. If such a requisition is filed by the Municipality, the District Collector shall complete the formalities and issue a notification, in accordance with law, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, within three months from the date of receipt of such a requisition. If notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not issued within the time, thereafter no further action to acquire the land of the petitioners shall be invoked. It is also declared that in case the Municipality fails to take up the matter with the Collector, and get the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the Collector, within the time limit prescribed above, still they can make a requisition to acquire land. But no such requisition shall be in respect of the properties owned by the petitioners in these writ petitions. W.P.(C) Nos.30607, 26488 & 35495/2007 etc. 9 7. A copy of the order along with the exhibits shall be communicated to the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, by the learned Government Pleader. Petitioners as well as the Municipality can also produce a copy of the judgment before him. 8. A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the District Collector, Palakkad, also for compliance of the order. In case a proper requisition is received from the Municipality, he shall take necessary steps within the time limit fixed by this court, for issuing a notification, failing which, he shall be responsible for flouting the orders of this Court. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.