IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7697 of 2005(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.RAHEEMA, W/O. SAHABIR HUSSAIN, K.T. HOUSE, BEHIND SAHARA SERVICE STATION, SHORNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 7697/05) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.12.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.7697 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12th June, 2008 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that a decision has been taken on the request of the 1st respondent-Municipality to acquire her properties for the purpose of the Municipality and even the compensation amount payable to the petitioner for the property has been determined. The main prayer in the Writ Petition is that the respondent (the Shornur Municipality, the 1st respondent and the District Collector, Palakkad, the 2nd respondent) be directed to take steps for release of the amounts which is assessed by the competent officer and take over the property within a time frame as this court deems fit. There is a further prayer that Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector in which the petitioner seeks payment of land value to the petitioner at a particular rate should be directed to be disposed of. It was submitted on behalf of the Municipality that there is no proposal to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner. As directed, the Secretary of the Municipality has filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: “It is most humbly submitted that the council of the W.P.C.No.7697/05 - 2 - municipality has not taken any decision with respect to take over of this land in question owned by the petitioner at the rate fixed by the government. This respondent has not made any offer to the petitioner that her land shall be taken and she will be paid for the same.” In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is further contended as follows: “It is most humbly submitted that before the purchase of the land inspection by the SET Approver committee and a report from the concerned authority in needed. A committee was constituted on 25.5.2004 to ascertain these things by this respondent. The Municipal Chairman presided over the committee and it was attended by other delegates and officers of the Municipality. But no decision was taken in this committee to take over the land in question owned by the petitioner.” In view of the stand taken by the Municipality through the counter affidavit, I do not find way to grant either of the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. At the same time, I feel that the Municipality can be directed to take a final decision whether the Municipality wants to acquire the petitioner's property for its purposes. Therefore, even as i decline the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition, I direct the W.P.C.No.7697/05 - 3 - Municipality to take a final decision as to whether the Municipality intends to acquire the petitioner's property within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. Once such a decision is taken, the petitioner should be informed by the Municipality of the same. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE