P.S.KUSUMAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, who is a resident of Aluva Municipality has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 5 th respondent- Municipality to utilise the land acquired for the purpose maintaining a parking area, for that purpose itself. The petitioner further seeks to direct the respondents to remove unauthorised parking in Temple Road of Aluva Municipality.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the Temple Road in Aluva is a narrow street having a width of about 6 meters. In the year 2001, the 5th respondent-Municipality decided to locate a parking area by acquiring 13.25 Ares of land, as per its Junction Improvement Scheme. The 5th respondent-Municipality submitted requisition to acquire the land in question, invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the case of the petitioner that after acquisition of the land, instead of providing a parking area, the 5th respondent has constructed a commercial building. This is against the purpose of the land acquisition, which was resorted to invoking urgency clause. At the behest of certain shop owners, a commercial building has been constructed by the Municipality leaving no space for parking of vehicles. The said action of the Municipality is illegal and against public interest, contends the petitioner. The further grievance of the petitioner is that she is the owner of a commercial building in the area and since the 5th respondent-Municipality did not provide parking space, taxi vehicles are parked adjacent to her shopping complex and that part of the road is used as a taxi parking stand. The parking of taxies is without the authority of law and is causing great inconvenience to the petitioner and the general public. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be compelled to maintain a parking lot in the said area and to remove unauthorised parking of taxies adjacent to the building of the petitioner.

(3.) The 5th respondent-Municipality appeared in the writ petition and opposed the prayers, filing a detailed counter affidavit. According to the 5th respondent-Municipality, in the year 1998 the Municipality made a proposal for Junction Improvement Scheme for the area in question. Necessary steps were taken to acquire the land. In the meanwhile, certain shop owners in the area filed WP(C)No.3875/2004 with a prayer that they should be rehabilitated. This Court directed the Municipality to consider their grievance. Taking into account the hardship that may be caused to the small scale shop owners, the Municipality decided to construct a shopping complex also in the acquired land with a view to rehabilitate the evictees. The Municipality had taken the decision to construct a commercial building on 20.05.2000 and the decision was approved by the Director of Municipalities, as can be seen from letter No.K.Dis(C3) 12384/2000 dated 24.06.2000. Therefore, there is no illegality on the action of the Municipality in utilising a part of the land acquired for parking area, to construct a shopping complex, contended the respondents.