J. Chelameswar, J.

1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 01.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24798 of 2009 as reaffirmed by dismissing the Review Petition, R.P. No. 1189 of 2009, by an order dated 04.03.2010, the Municipality whose Secretary was the 4th respondent in the writ petition preferred the present appeal.

2. We must place on record our regret that though the abovementioned Municipality is a necessary party which is declared u/s 5 of the Kerala Municipality Act to be a body corporate which can be sued or capable of being sued in its name, was not made a party to the writ petition nor did the Municipality raise any objection in that regard but chose to prefer the instant writ appeal. In our opinion this appeal is not maintainable as the appellant is neither a party to a proceeding of this Court nor an appropriate application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment to which the instant appellant is not a party. Be that as it may, the facts situation leading to the present litigation and the issues are as follows:

3. The 1st respondent herein is a doctor who purchased certain parcel of land (17.5 cents) within the limits of the appellant Municipality. He proposes to construct a Nursing Home in the said property. He, therefore, made an application to the appellant seeking appropriate permission under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act. The same was rejected by an order dated 26.07.07(filed as Ext.P2 in the writ petition) by the appellant on the ground that the property in which the building is proposed to be constructed, is shown in the draft scheme prepared under the provisions of Sections 4 and 9 of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, as a property which can be acquired eventually for the purpose of construction of a bus station.

4. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition stating that the Scheme which is relied upon by the appellant herein is un-operational and therefore the issue is covered by an earlier decision of this Court in Nasar Vs. Malappuram Municipality, .

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Sections 33 and 34 of the Madras Town Planning Act read with Section 393(1)(vii) of the Municipality Act, once it is indicated that if 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 a construction can be granted.

6. Section 393 of the Kerala Municipality Act indicates grounds under which an application for building permit can be rejected, which reads as follows:

393. Grounds on which approval of site or permission to construct or reconstruct building may be refused.-(1) The grounds on which approval of site for construction or reconstruction of a building or permission to construct or reconstruct a building shall be refused are the following, namely:

xxx xxx

(vii) that the land is under acquisition proceedings.

7. It can be seen from the above that the application for construction of a building can be rejected on the ground that the land upon which the construction is proposed is a land under "acquisition proceedings". The expression "acquisition proceedings" is not defined under the Act, but having regard to the fact that there are various laws providing for the acquisition of the immovable property and also the specific reference under Sections 33 and 34 of the Madras Town Planning Act to the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to the expression "acquisition proceedings" in our view is required to be understood as the "acquisition proceedings" contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

8. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is that whenever the Government is of the opinion that a particular piece of land is required for a public purpose, a notification to that effect is required to be published u/s 4 and upon the publication of such notification any person having an interest in such property sought