Dismissed

Dr.K.Valsala Devi and 4 Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC8 Apr 2008WP(C)/7428/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the declaration of acquisition of their land for an International Airport under the Fast Track Scheme, alleging arbitrary price fixation and lack of public purpose. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that public purpose was established, price objections should be filed under specific sections, and writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for these matters.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; interim order dated 11.3.2008 also dismissed. No order compelling Fast Track acquisition.

Dr.K.Valsala Devi and 4 Others Vs State of Kerala and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 7428 of 2007(H) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

------------------

¶8

1. DR. K.VALSALA DEVI, AGED 57, W/O. P.SUDHAKARAN, "DEEPTHI", T.C.NO.31/120, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. S.PREMASUDHA, AGED 56, D/O. SARASWATHY, T.C.NO.31/1490, SANKARA BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. KUMARI SANTHA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. SARASWATHY, SOUPARNIKA, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA, N.H.BYEPASS, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

4. KUMARI PADMAM, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. MOHANAN, T.C.31/114, BHAVANIMANDIRAM, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24.

¶12

5. KUMARI JAYANTHI, AGED 41, W/O. ASOKAN, T.C.31/1489, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SRI.ANIMON A. JOHN

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

----------------------

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT, ANJALI NAGAR, PALLIMUKKU, PETTA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

5. THE INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.V.SANTHARAM BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.G. SUNIL

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.4.2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8922 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P(C) NO. 7428 OF 2007

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF DECLARATION DATED 3.3.2005 APPEARED IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI DATED 26.4.2005.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.6.2005 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GUIDELINE.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DLPC DATED 24.6.2005.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 6.7./2005 OF THE LAND OWNERS.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.12.2005 OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DATED 19.10.2006.

¶33

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.9(B)(x) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.2.2007.

¶35

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FULL TEXT OF THE REPLY.

¶36

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR TAKING OVER THE LAND UNDER THE FAST TRACK SCHEME.

¶37

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.K13/4895/03. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.K-13/16124/07. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(RT) NO.102/2007/ITD.

¶38

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶39

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶40

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶41

W.P(C) NO.7428 OF 2007

¶42

AND

¶43

W.P(C) NO.8922 OF 2007

¶44

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2008

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

--------------------

¶47

The main relief sought for in these Writ Petitions is to quash a declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by which the Land Revenue Commissioner had declared that the properties, which are the subject matter of these Writ Petitions, were required for a public purpose. Petitioners are owners of properties situated in Chackai and Vayyamoola to Vallakadavu in Pettah and Kadakampally Villages. According to the petitioners there is no public purpose. It was averred that the Government had decided to acquire lands under Fast Track Scheme and for fixing the land value a District Level Purchase Committee was constituted to negotiate with the owners. Contrary to the Scheme the District Collector has arbitrarily fixed the price of the land in the meeting held on 24.6.2005 and classified the land into five categories. It is also averred that the members of the

¶48

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶49

-: 2 :-

¶50

District Level Purchase Committee were not present. It was further averred that petitioners filed objections to the price fixed by the District Collector in the DLPC meeting held on 24.6.2005 and claimed Rs.2,00,000/- per cent for the entire lands to be acquired. It was also averred that the Honourable Minister for Law gave an assurance on the floor of the Legislative Assembly that the properties will be acquired under the Fast Track Scheme. But petitioners were served with notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. It was also averred that while conducting the award enquiry no approved detailed valuation statement was available and serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. It was further averred that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7428 of 2007 filed an objection before the Chief Minister of Kerala raising serious allegations and Government have called a report from the District Collector. The District Collector, after inspecting the properties, sent a report to the Government. Hence the prayer to quash the declaration and also for a direction to the respondents to take over petitioners' properties under the Fast Track Scheme.

¶51

2. I shall consider whether this Court can compel the

¶52

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶53

-: 3 :-

¶54

respondents to take over the properties of the petitioners under the Fast Tract Scheme.

¶55

3. State has filed a very detailed counter affidavit on 20.3.2007. It was stated that the lands sought to be acquired are scattered in Chackai and Vayyamoola to Vallakkadavu situated in Pettah and Kadakampally Villages. It was stated that the lands were classified into 5 blocks. Reasons for the classification were also stated in the counter affidavit. It was stated that on 10.6.2005 notice was served on the land owners to attend the DLPC meeting scheduled to be held on 24.6.2005 at 11.00 a.m. The value fixed by the DLPC was also stated in the counter affidavit. It was stated that the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, Deputy Collector (LA), Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram, Land Acquisition Officer, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, General Manager,TRIDAS, Thiruvananthapuram, Representative from the Airport Authority of India and a Councilor of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation attended the meeting. It was further stated that all the petitioners were given 10 days' time to approach the Land Acquisition Officer with their consent. But none of the petitioners gave their consent in

¶56

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶57

-: 4 :-

¶58

writing, but objected to the same by filing a representation before the District Collector. Award enquiry was already conducted. It was also stated that due to the non-cooperation of the petitioners direct purchase could not be effected and procedure under the Act were followed.

¶59

4. In Writ Petition No.8922 of 2007 also respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it was stated that the lands were classified into 5 groups. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it was stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has to verify the title deeds, non-encumbrance certificate, basic tax receipt, possession certificate and other relevant records relating to the lands to be acquired. It was stated that for the said purpose award enquiry was conducted. Details of the value fixed by the DLPC and Land Acquisition Officer were also given in the counter affidavit. Exhibit P4 in Writ Petition No.7428 of 2007 is the minutes of the DLPC meeting held on 24.6.2005. The main attack against Exhibit P4 is that the said meeting was not attended to by the members of the DLPC fixed by the Government, but by somebody else. In clause 4 of the guidelines for accelerating land acquisition provides for

¶60

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶61

-: 5 :-

¶62

constitution of the DLPC. It reads as follows:

¶63

“4. The land price will be determined by the District Level Purchase Committee. The composition of this Committee would be as under:

¶64

District Collector - Chairman

¶65

Concerned Revenue Divisional Officer - member

¶66

Finance Officer of the Collectorate - member

¶67

Officer designated by the concerned Project Authority - member

¶68

Officer nominated by Secretary (FTP) - Convenor

¶69

The District Level Purchase Committee will arrive at the value within the Principles and Policy Framework as per Annexure - I in the area after conducting due enquiries and after holding negotiations with the project affects persons and forward recommendations with justification for the value arrived at to the Empowered committee for its approval”.

¶70

Exhibit P4 minutes will show that the DLPC meeting was attended to by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram,

¶71

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶72

-: 6 :-

¶73

Deputy Collector (LA), Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram, Land Acquisition Officer, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, General Manager, TRIDAS, Thiruvananthapuram, Representative from the Airport Authority of India and the Councilor of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation.

¶74

5. I do not find any reason to hold that the persons who attended the meeting had no authority to attend that meeting. Exhibit P4 contains the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the value offered by the DLPC. Land owners were given 10 days' time to file their consent. They did not file their consent, but filed objections. Land owners wanted at least Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. They were against the classification of the property into five categories also. So it is evidently clear that the land owners were not prepared to accept the price fixed by the DLPC. Hence they cannot now now turn round and compel the Government to resort to the Fast Track Scheme.

¶75

6. The other contention raised is that no proper award enquiry was conducted in these cases. The argument is raised on account of the statement contained in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.8922 of 2007 in

¶76

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶77

-: 7 :-

¶78

which it was stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has to verify the title deeds, non-encumbrance certificate, basic tax receipt, possession certificate and other relevant records relating to the land to be acquired. It is seen that the draft award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer and approved by the District Collector contains the details of the lands and also the reasons stated for classifying the property into 5 groups. In these proceedings, it is not possible for this Court to consider whether such a classification was scientific or not. The notice of Award shows that 19 documents were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Much reliance is placed on a letter written by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, signed by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. Of course, there is a statement in the said letter. The contention of the petitioners is that the value fixed is less. That is also a matter which has to be agitated in appropriate proceedings, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. They can file petition under Section 18(1) of the Act for referring the matter to the competent civil court having jurisdiction over the area. They have also got other remedies like applications

¶79

W.P(C) NO.7428 & 8922 OF 2007

¶80

-: 8 :-

¶81

under Section 28A and 28A(3) of the Act. So I am of the view that it is not just and proper to interfere with the draft award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to file petitions for claiming enhancement at appropriate time, these Writ Petitions are only to be dismissed.

¶82

7. The declaration was published as early as on 5.3.2005. These Writ Petitions were filed during March, 2007. Lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. So at no stretch of imagination it can be held that there was no public purpose. I do not find any reason to quash the declaration issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶83

In the result, Writ Petitions are dismissed. Interim order passed on 11.3.2008 shall stand dismissed.

¶84

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶85

vsv

¶86

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶87

===================== M.F.A.

¶88

===================== J U D G M E N T

¶89

TH MARCH, 2008

Dr.K.Valsala Devi and 4 Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.Valsala Devi and 4 Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Liyaquath Ali Vs District Collector

Xavier.M.P. Vs the Spl.Tahsildar

Edathil Meenakshi Vs Vasandhara

Sebastian.K.R. Vs Kochuthresia

M.K.Sjeev & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Kodiyath Santha & Another Vs Spl.Tahsildar (La),Ezhimala Naval Academ