Judgment :- W.P(C) No. 14768 of 2004 The challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Section 4 (1) notification issued under the land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer for widening a portion of Pallimukku-Anayara road, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram. Though initially the notification proposed was for widening the road, during the pendency of the proceedings, a Railway over Bridge was sanctioned and respondents took a stand that this particular land is necessary for the construction of the approach road to the Over Bridge. Initially the dispute was regarding the width of the road. At one stage it was fixed at 18 metres. Later it was reduced to 12 metres and again it was increased to 18 metres. After considering the material on record, on 27.2007 this Court found that as per the revised Master plan the width of the roads of this nature was fixed as 16 metres. This Court directed the Chief Town Planner to take a final decision regarding the revised Master Plan as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of that order. No action is seen taken in the matter. No petition for extensions of time fixed is also seen filed. The Director of Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau was directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. A report was filed and this Court accepted that report. 2. On 211.2007 this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the land involved in this case can be taken possession along with the land on the other side of the Railway Over Bridge for the purpose of the construction of the approach road. On 112.2007 this Court permitted the respondents to take possession of the land after passing the award without any fresh notification. This Court also permitted the respondents to take possession of land for which awards were already passed. W.P(C) No. 7629 of 2008 3. The petitioners are residents and land owners on either side of pallimukku Petta Anayara road. They are challenging Exhibit P1 order dated 11.2003 by which sanction was accorded to invoke urgency clause for acquisition. They are also seeking a direction to the respondents to commence the road widening works equally, uniformly and simultaneously from both sides of Pettah Anayara road without restricting the same to one place alone. They are challenging Exhibit P1 order dated 11.2003 by which sanction was accorded to invoke urgency clause for acquisition. They are also seeking a direction to the respondents to commence the road widening works equally, uniformly and simultaneously from both sides of Pettah Anayara road without restricting the same to one place alone. On 13.2008 I had issued a direction to the respondents to value the building, gate, compound wall, etc. it is submitted by the learned Government pleader that the work is in progress and it will take some more time to fix the value. In various orders I had made it clear that since the purpose of acquisition of the land is for construction of approach road to the Railway over Bridge, possession of the property can be taken after passing the awards. I had also issued a direction to the respondents to take steps for acquisition of land from the southern side of the Railway Over Bridge also. I had also clarified that the respondents shall not take possession of the disputed land without acquiring land from the southern side of the proposed Railway Over Bridge. 4. Shri T.G. Sunil, Senior Government Pleader, submits that the requisitioning authority has forwarded a requisition to acquire land from the southern side of the proposed Over Bridge also and after observing all formalities necessary notification will be issued as expeditiously as possible. It is submitted that in the case of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7629 of 2008, awards were passed long back and the respondents are bound to pay interest at 15% to the landowners. 5. I have heard Shri N. Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Sooraj T. Elenjickal, appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions, Shri T.G. Sunil, learned Senior Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for Railways and TRIDA. 6. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the Writ petitions can be disposed of with certain directions. On 211.2007 I had passed an interim order, the operative portion of the same reads as follows: “In view of the suspicious circumstances it is only just and proper that before respondents 1 to 8 take any further action for widening of road, a final decision is taken regarding the width of the roads alone in the road net work plan for 2011 in the revised master plan yet to be finalized. It is submitted by the standing counsel for TRIDA that the revised master plan is pending with the Chief Town planner and he is the competent authority to take a decision. So there will be a direction to the Chief Town planner to take a final decision regarding revised master plan as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that this interim order is not applicable to the widening of the roads which are already undertaken by TRIDA under the Capital Region Development Programmed and widening of those roads can proceed in accordance with the notifications already issued. It is made clear that this restriction is not applicable for the acquisition for the purpose of construction of approach road for any railway over bridge in Thiruvananthapuram City”. 7. Theaforesaid order will continue to be in gone until the revised master plan is finalized. 8. The respondents can take possessions of he properties in W.P.(C) No. 14768 of 2004 which are situated in the northern side of the proposed Railway Over Bridge only after issuing Section 4 (1) notification in respect of the properties situated on the southern side. It is made clear that after issuing the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act, possession of properties involved in both these Writ Petitions can be taken. The competent authority shall value the improvements effected by the persons in possession of land to be taken possession such as building, gate, compound wall, etc. in case any dispute arises regarding the value so fixed, the same shall be referred to the Land Acquisition Court for determining that point. The Government should expedite the acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties situated on the southern side of the proposed Railway Over Bridge and required for the construction of the approach road to the proposed Railway Over Bridge. 9. Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observations and directions. Interlocutory Application No. 4811 of 2007 shall stand disposed of vide judgment.