IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 1650 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.22938/1999 Dated 25/03/2004 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ------------------------- ELIZEBATH JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY EAST, MUTTATHUMURI, MALLAPPALLYTALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL) PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY, TALUK. 8. THE SECRETARY, MALLAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 9. T.S.JOH, ADVOCATE, HB.HIG, FLAT NO.112, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 36. R1,2, 4 TO 7 BY SR. G.P. SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL ADV. SRI.T.RAVI KUMAR (SC) SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R8 SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SUMA.G. FOR ADV.COMMISSIONE SRI.JAMES KOSHY SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO.679 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal Nos.1650 of 2004 & 679 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment whereunder the learned Single Judge interfered with proposal to acquire 44 cents of land belonging to the appellant in W.A. No.1650/2004 for construction of a road and shopping complex for the KSRTC, Mallapally. The said appellant offered 5 cents of land as that was only required for construction of the road to the Bus Station. According to her, construction of a shopping complex is not a public purpose and in any case KSRTC did not intend to construct any shopping complex. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention and held that land is required only for road. It is against this judgment the Panchayat has filed separate Writ Appeal, W.A. No.679/2005. 2. During previous hearing, another Bench expressed doubt whether local authorities should be permitted to invest in shopping W.A. 1650/04&679/05 2 complex and other commercial ventures as their statutory priority should be different. Therefore, interim orders were issued directing the Government to collect statistics about shopping complex and other commercial ventures made by local authorities and file a report in this court. In fact, reports filed did not contain precise details and therefore, further particulars were called for. This court in the interim order dated 29.10.2009 felt that the local authorities are even abandoning their statutory duties like provision for sanitation, medial aid, road facility, drinking water etc. for the people and taking up commercial ventures probably to benefit a few in control of the local authorities. Even though a detailed judgment is called for on the statutory preferences which local authorities should show, we feel in this case there is no need to consider all these matters because the Notification impugned in the Writ Petition itself has lapsed by efflux of time. Consequently we close the Writ Appeals as infructuous leaving freedom to the Panchayat and KSRTC to consider acquisition of land for public purpose and if commercial venture is also a public purpose, it is still open to them to consider acquisition. However, the land owners should be heard in W.A. 1650/04&679/05 3 detail before proceeding with any such fresh step. We make it clear that the documents and details furnished by the State pursuant to interim orders are not considered on merits and this judgment should not be treated as our endorsement for the justification for any such investment made in any project by any local authority. All other contentions are left open. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms