K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The appellant, who applied for a building permit, was aggrieved by the rejection of the same on the ground of proposal to acquire properties for a Trade Centre-cum-Mini Bus Stand; in which the appellant's property, having an extent of 6 Ares and 10 square meters, is also included. The learned Single Judge found that since there was a proposal to acquire the said property, evidenced by Exhibits P3 and P4, there would be no purpose served in directing the Corporation to consider the application for building permit.

2. The appellant impugn the above judgment and the learned counsel before us contended that Section 393 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 inter alia permits refusal of approval of site for construction or reconstruction of a building only when the land is under acquisition proceedings. Exhibits P3 and P4, according to the learned counsel, are not acquisition proceedings and the respondent-Corporation ought not to have declined the appellant's application for building permit. The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision in Kalpetta Municipality v. Mohandas [2012 (1) KLT 62].

3. In Kalpetta Municipality case (supra), there was a proposal for acquisition of the property for construction of a bus station, under the Madras Town Planning Act, and the contention of the Municipality was that in the minutes it is indicated that a particular piece of property within the limits of the Municipality is required for a public purpose, no construction on the said property can be allowed or a building permit for such construction can be granted under Section 393(1)(vii) of the Municipality Act. A Division Bench of this Court, however, found that even if there is a notification under the Madras Town Planning Act, there is no deeming provision to consider such notification to take effect from the date of the acquisition proceedings under Sections 33 and 34 of the Madras Act. The rejection of building permit was, hence, found to be untenable.

4. On going through the records of the present case, it is seen that rejection was prompted by Exhibits P3 and P4. Exhibit P3 is not a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; nor is it professed to be a notification under any statute deeming the same as akin to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. On a reading of Exhibit P3, it comes to fore that by G.O.(MS). No.124/2011/LSGD dated 1.7.2011, 90.6 cents of land in Kazhakuttam Village was ordered to be acquired for the purpose of the project Kazhakuttam Trade Centre-cum-Mini Bus Stand invoking the urgency clause. However, no Section 4(1) notification has been published, since Exhibit P3 notification has been issued only on the condition that the Government will not be cast with any financial/litigation liabilities. It is also a specific condition in Exhibit P3 that 80% of the amount required for the acquisition shall be deposited before the District Collector in advance by the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA).

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that though there was a notification under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act published on 29.06.2005, no declaration within the stipulated time under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published and the notification under Section 4(1) has lapsed. Admitting Exhibit P3, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, would submit that a fresh requisition was submitted by the TRIDA on 13.1.2012 and though a proposal for invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was submitted before the Commissioner for Land Revenue, the same was returned for want of remittance particulars of 80% of fund required for the acquisition proceedings in advance. TRIDA, according to the Government, has not responded to this and no deposit of amount has been made. Hence, there is no notification under Section 4(1) or Section 17(4)