IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1971 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRAN.O.S., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, OLLEKAT HOUSE, 'ANAMALA ROAD, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.M.P.ASOKKUMAR, SC MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1971 of 2010(V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The controversy raised in the writ petition is in relation to the construction of a private bus stand by the 1st respondent Municipality. 2. The contention raised is that by Ext.P1 order of the Government, sanction was given for proceeding with the project on condition that at least 2.50 acres of land will be provided for the bus stand in question. According to the petitioner, the Municipality has only 1.71 acres of land, and therefore unless the acquisition proceedings for the remaining extent is completed, the Municipality should not proceed with the construction. 3. The case was adjourned for the instructions of the learned standing counsel for the Municipality, who, on instructions, submits that apart from 1.71 acres of land mentioned in the writ petition, the Municipality has come into possession of 60 cents of land, which is the total extent of land freely surrendered by five WP(C) No.1971/2010 -2- private individuals. It is stated that in addition to this, the Municipality has provided its own 18.8 cents of land. That apart, it is pointed out that the Municipality has also initiated acquisition of another 24 cents of land. Thus it can be seen that the Municipality has provided the extent of land prescribed in Ext.P1. If that be so, I do not think that the grievance highlighted in the writ petition has any substance. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg