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 9.12.2015, constituted a Sub Committee for the purposes of exploring the availability of suitable land for the Municipality. Thereafter, by Ext.P13 Resolution dated 12.2.2016, and pursuant to identifying the 3rd respondent's land, the Municipality resolved to purchase the land belonging to the 3rd respondent, and initiate steps for acquisition of the land. The 3rd respondent, on his part, appears to have submitted an offer through Ext.P2 letter dated 24.2.2016, and the Council of the Municipality, by Ext.P14 decision dated 3.3.2016, accepted the said offer. The Municipality thereafter, by Resolution dated 28.5.2016, decided to acquire 102 cents of land belonging to the 3rd respondent, by giving 25 cents of its land to the said respondent, as part of the consideration for the property acquired from the 3rd respondent. The Secretary of the respondent Municipality thereafter sought for a valuation certificate, in respect of the land proposed to be acquired, from the Village Officer as evidenced by Ext.P5 dated 27.12.2016. In response to the said request of the Secretary, the Village Officer submitted two reports, produced as Ext.P6 dated 27.12.2016 and Ext.P7 dated 9.2.2017, detailing the value that could be fixed for the lands for the purposes of the exchange transaction. By Ext.P8 decision dated 17.7.2017, the Council of the respondent Municipality approved the decision of the Municipality to go in for the exchange arrangement, and also decided to seek approval of the State Government for the same. The State Government, by Ext.P9 letter dated 21.8.2017, is seen to have granted approval to the arrangements envisaged by the Municipality. It is not in dispute that thereafter, an exchange deed was executed between the 1st respondent Municipality and the 3rd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P10.

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 non-application 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 prop