IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32112 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.T.THRESYAMMA, W/O P.C.SUNNY, PERAMANGALATH HOUSE, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD. 3. THE SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 32112/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 11.10.2006 IN WP.(C) No.14717/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 15.12.2006. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNICIPALITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.A. To Judge. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32112 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns 95 cents of land on the West Gate of Guruvayoor temple in Guruvayoor Municipality. According to the petitioner, about eight years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition, a proposal was made by the Guruvayoor Municipality to acquire the land of the petitioner and others, for construction of a bus stand. But so far that decision was not implemented. It was averred that since no effective steps were taken, petitioner and others filed W.P.(C) No.14717/2006 before this Court, and this Court held that Municipality shall not interfere with the enjoyment of the property owned by the petitioners. It was averred that the writ petition was disposed of on 11.10.2006, and on 14.12.2006, the Municipality has passed a resolution to acquire the land including the land of the petitioner, for construction of a bus stand. It was further contended that petitioner and others are not getting prospective purchasers, because of the constant threat of acquisition, and at the same time, the Municipality is also not taking any steps for the acquisition of the same. W.P.(C) No.32112/2007 2 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that after filing of this writ petition, the Municipality had again passed a resolution, and sent the same for approval, after getting necessary funds sanctioned from KURDFC. He further submits that Municipality had passed a resolution to acquire the land of the petitioner and others, for construction of a bus stand. But due to paucity of funds, the decision could not be implemented so far. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the proposal of a local body to construct a bus stand cannot be disallowed. But they cannot keep the same as a Damocles sword over the citizens indefinitely. According to the petitioner, for the last nine years, they are unable to sell the property, and even if a prospective purchaser comes, he is not prepared to pay the market price, on the ground that at any moment, the property will be acquired by the Municipality. I am of the view that a time limit has to be fixed by which the Municipality shall take steps to acquire the land. 3. If the Municipality is really serious in proceeding with the acquisition, it shall find out necessary funds, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and make a requisition to the Government. The first respondent, State, shall issue W.P.(C) No.32112/2007 3 a notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, within three months from that date. I make it clear that in case of default on the part of the Municipality, and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not published, within the above stipulated period, thereafter, the Municipality cannot proceed with the acquisition in respect of the land now proposed to b e acquired. This judgment will not be a bar for acquiring other properties for the same purpose. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.