(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Bhaskaran for the appellant, Mr. P. C. Sasidharan for the 2nd respondent and Government Pleader for the first respondent.
(2.) PETITIONERS in the Original Petition are the appellants herein. They are in possession of 26 cents of land in R. S. 247/6c-2 in Vadakara amsom, desom as per registered document dated 27. 1. 1969. The property is situated very near to the new bus stand and the bye pass road. It is submitted that the appellants are residing in a rented building. Therefore, they applied for permission to construct a residential building, to the 2ndrespondent Municipality on 16. 1. 1996, which was rejected by the Municipality as per Ext. P1 on the same day stating that the area is proposed to be acquired for residential purposes. According to the appellants, the first respondent State of Kerala have decided to abandon the narayanapuram Housing Colony Scheme since it was found impractical and non-profitable. In support of the said contention the appellants have produced ext. P2 communication from the first respondent to a Member of the Legislative assembly with copy to one of the residents of Narayanapuram. Since the scheme was abandoned as per Ext. P2, the appellants again applied for permission to construct a residential building as per Ext. P2 dated 23. 12. 1997, which was again returned on 13. 1. 1998 with the endorsement "the area to be acquired for residential purpose as per D. T. P. Scheme for new bus stand area. May be returned. " Thereupon the appellants approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The appellants also produced a copy of the application with the above endorsement as Ext P3 in the Original Petition. They prayed for quashing the order in Ext. P3 application for permission to construct the building and also a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take back Ext. P3 application and the plan accompanying the same and grant approval if the same is in accordance with the Building Rules.
(3.) P. Shanmugarn,j. , by his judgment which is impugned in this appeal, held that the expression "acquisition proceedings" will take in the decision and the sanction and the procedure to be followed for acquiring the land and that the said expression cannot be confined only to the last of S. 4 (1) notification. If it is so understood, according to the learned judge, the acquisition proceedings will include the decision taken by the municipality and the sanction given by the Government and the learned judge noted that of land in various survey numbers for a housing scheme based on the recommendations of the Chief Town Planner and the Secretary of the municipality. According to the learned judge, the Municipality has taken all the necessary steps for the land acquisition and they have sent copy of the resolution, site sketch and agreement in Form No. 7 as well as requisition in form No. 2 and the District Collector had only to issue the notification under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned judge further observed that if the contention of the appellants is accepted, the purpose of the acquisition will be defeated. Before the learned judge a decision of this Court in Hassan v. Corporation of Calicut (1996 (2) KLT 839) and of the Supreme Co'irt in Collector (Dist. Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram (AIR 1985 SC 1622) were also cited by counsel for the appellant. According to the learned judge, the said decisions may not be of any help to the appellant's case. The learned judge dismissed the original Petition holding that an action taken under S. 215 of the Kerala municipality Act for the purpose of acquiring land is one of the proceedings under the Kerala Municipality Act, which can certainly be brought under s. 393 (1) (vii) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have come up in appeal.