IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURALE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1575 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18638/2008 DATED 07/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- P.E.SAHSRANAMAN, AGED 77 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT POSTAL DIRECTOR, 24/203, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY , PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1575 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay and alleged laches on the part of the Palakkad Municipality in starting the proposed land acquisition proceedings in connection with the Detailed Town Planning Scheme, which included acquisition of the small parcel of the property of the appellant also, the appellant had filed the writ petition seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order rejecting the request made by the appellant to allow him to start construction of a residential building in his property. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that steps for acquisition of the property in connection with the Scheme were at an advanced stage and, therefore, the request made by the appellant could not have been entertained by the Municipality. Admittedly, the property of the appellant is also proposed to be acquired for the above purpose. 3. But the learned counsel for the appellant submits before us that the above proposal made by the Municipality had been hanging fire for the last quarter of a century. Even the preliminary notification has not been issued so far. Therefore, the request made by the appellant to grant W.A.No.1575 of 2008 2 permission to construct a residential building in the only small parcel of land in his possession, ought not to have been rejected on the plea that the said plot of land is also proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the Scheme. 4. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to Ext.P2 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in connection with the same issue. In the said judgment this Court had recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality that the acquisition proceedings would be completed within an outer limit of six months. The said judgment was rendered by the Division Bench on November 22, 2006. It is true that more than 1½ years have elapsed after the pronouncement of the said judgment. 5. When this writ appeal came up for admission before us, we had directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and find out at what stage the acquisition proceedings were. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel for the Palakkad Municipality was also requested to ascertain and inform us as to how soon the acquisition proceedings would be completed. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality has placed on record the affidavit of the Secretary of the Municipality in which the various steps taken in the matter have been narrated. It is also W.A.No.1575 of 2008 3 stated that necessary notification under Section 6(1) of the Survey and Boundaries Act had already been issued. The Government has been approached with a request to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act . It is further stated that necessary budgetory allotment has already been made to pay compensation in regard to the land in question belonging to the appellant. 7. Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader, also informs us after getting instructions from the officer concerned, that Section 4(1) notification will be issued within three months from today, and at any rate, the entire proceedings would be completed within an outer limit of six months from today. The above submission is recorded. 8. In view of the above developments, we do not propose to pass any further orders in the matter at this stage. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns