MUMMU Vs. RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a resident of Feroke Municipality, states that he has a family house and property within the limits of the 1st respondent Municipality. The Municipality apparently owns 31 cents of land in R.S.No.296/1A of Ramanattukara Village, and on the northern side of the said property, the 3rd respondent owns 2.25 acres in R.S.No.295/2 and 296/1A1 of the same Village. The petitioner's mother too owns property comprising of 75 cents, on the eastern side of the Municipality's property.

(2.) It would appear that the 1st respondent Municipality wanted to construct a Municipal Office that would accommodate more people than the present office. With a view to acquiring property for constructing a bigger office building, the respondent Municipality, by Ext.P12 Resolution dated

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P8 decision of the respondent Municipality, as also Ext.P9 decision of the Government, granting approval to the aforementioned arrangement of the Municipality. It is contended that, in resorting to the said arrangement, the respondent Municipality had not complied with the mandatory procedure that was contemplated under the Kerala Municipality (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the '2000 Rules'], in that, they had not issued any public notice or invited any tender or held any auction in connection with the disposal of their property. It is also stated that the respondent Municipality did not explore the option of acquiring land through land acquisition proceedings, and further, did not consider an offer that had been made by the petitioner's mother to surrender 5000 sq. ft. of office space to the Municipality, free of cost, in the event of the Municipality giving permission for construction of a commercial complex on her land. The Government's action in granting approval to the Resolution of the Municipality is also impugned as being vitiated on account of a nonapplication of mind by the Government to the factors that were necessary to establish the arrangement as legal. On the merits of the decision of the Municipality, it is stated that the valuation of the property of the Municipality was not done properly, and as a result, the Municipality has suffered great