C.M. PAUL Vs. C.G. THILAKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 6 appear through Sri. Abraham K. John. Sri P. A. Ahamed appears for 7th respondent Municipality. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 9 and 10. No notice is required for 8th respondent since, he did not appear before the learned Single Judge, inspite of service of notice.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 6 herein were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, and the appellant herein was the 2nd respondent. The writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners are the residents of the locality where the appellant-respondent is also residing. It is also not in dispute that the appellant intended to put up a compound wall around his property which became the grievance of the writ petitioners on the ground that the said compound wall would obstruct the ingress and egress to their properties. It is also not in dispute that Ext. P3 is a notice from the respondent Municipality, addressed to the appellant opining that the re-construction of the wall undertaken by him was illegal for want of sanction of the Municipality. According to the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, before the learned Single Judge, under Land Acquisition Act, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be published on 25/05/2013 and the same did appear in local dailies on 26/05/2013. Hence the proceedings have to be concluded with the final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The notifying authority has one year's time to notify final declaration under Section 6(1) from 25/05/2013. As a matter of fact, acquisition of land was never the subject-matter raised by the writ petitioners. The only grievance was that if compound wall is reconstructed by the appellant, it would obstruct ingress and egress to their properties. In other words, the contention impliedly refers to a right of easement or other civil rights. We fail to understand how such a factual situation could be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226. That apart, in the absence of invoking emergency clause under acquisition proceedings the proceedings have to be in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act which includes final notification under Section 6(1) within the time prescribed. An enquiry is envisaged under Section 5A of the Act, and this Court cannot bypass such enquiry.