Dismissed

Abdul Majeed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2012WP(C)/5003/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging land acquisition for a tsunami rehabilitation project. The Court held that the procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act were complied with and ruled that the public purpose for the project did not lapse, as funds were earmarked for completing ongoing constructions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioners.

Abdul Majeed Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5003 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 52, S/O.MUHAMMEDUNNI, PUNNILATH HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 38, THEMBAVILLA PUTHENVEETIL, MATHILAKAM PUTHIYAKAVU P.O, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH).

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HAVING OFFICE AT COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶14

5. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPL.TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION(GENERAL), THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶15

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA BHATT.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS. 5649/2012 & 8446/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.5003/2012-A:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF THE POWER HOLDER DATED 20/10/2011.

¶21

EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8/4/08. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C). NO.4886/09 DATED 21/5/09.

¶22

EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN SLP NO.26648/2010 DATED 11/1/2011.

¶23

EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SLP NO.26648/2010 DATED 28/3/2011. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/11/2011.

¶24

EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 8/12/2011.

¶25

EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 31/1/2012.

¶26

EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 15/11/2011.

¶27

EXT.P.10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
	DATED 23/03/2012.

¶28

EXT.P.11:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
	DATED 17/05/2012.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE STATUS OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION IN NINE COASTAL DISTRICTS AS ON 15/12/2011.

¶31

EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 05/02/2012 IN WHICH SECTION 6 NOTIFICATION WERE PUBLISHED.

¶32

EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 04/02/2012 IN WHICH SECTION 6 NOTIFICATION WERE PUBLISHED.

¶33

EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER U/S. 5A OF THE ACT. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFICER. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE DRAFT DECLARATION U/S. 6 PUBLISHED ON 31/01/2012. EXT.R3.D: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALREADY IMPLEMENTED SCHEME SHOWING CONSTRUCTED HOUSES.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 5003, 5649 & 8446 OF 2012

¶38

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

¶39

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2012

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The issues raised in these writ petitions are connected. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. WP(C) No. 5649/12 is treated as the leading case.

¶42

Petitioners in WP(C) No. 5649/12 challenge the acquisition of 0.9714 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.103/1 of Vatanapilly Village in Chavakkad Taluk. The purpose for which the land is notified for acquisition is for implementing the tsunami rehabilitation project. Ext.P1 is the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. That notification was subsequently cancelled by Ext.P3 dated 14/11/2008. On 14/11/2008 itself, Ext.P4 notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) as well. It appears that Ext.P4 notification was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2304/09 and that case was heard by this Court along with similar other writ petitions. By Ext.P5 judgment rendered by a Division Bench on 27^th of May,

¶43

:2 :

¶44

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶45

2009, upholding the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(4), the writ petition was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Apex Court and Exts.P6 and P7 are the interim orders that were passed. When the appeal along with connected matters came up for orders before the Court on 28/3/11, on behalf of the State, it was submitted that the petitioners will be given notice under Section 5(A) and that the procedure laid down in the Act will thereafter be adopted by the respondents. Recording that submission, the appeals were disposed of by Ext.P8 order.

¶46

Following Ext.P8, Ext.P9 notice under Section 5(A) was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7/10/11. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Ext.P10 objection where it was also contended that the time for implementation of the project was extended only till 31/12/2009 and that the continuation of the acquisition was for an elapsed scheme and hence illegal.

¶47

Ext.R3(b) dated 18/11/11 is the report of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A. It appears that on receipt of Ext.R3(b), the Commissioner for Land Revenue issued Ext.P11 notice dated 24/11/11 giving an opportunity of hearing to the

¶48

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶49

:3 :

¶50

affected parties. Petitioners accordingly appeared and filed Ext.P12 argument notes reiterating their objections in the matter. The objections were considered and were rejected by the Land Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P13 proceedings dated 21/1/12. Following this, Ext.R3(c) declaration under Section 6 was published in the gazette. In Ext.R3(c), survey number of the property has been mentioned as 103/4 and the extent is also mentioned as 0.9464 hectares. Exts.R1(b) and (c) are the newspaper publications simultaneously effected. This was followed by Ext.P14 notice under Section 9(3) and finally the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 23/3/12. Thereafter, Ext.P17 notice under Section 12(2) was issued to the petitioner on 25/2/12 and it was at that stage the writ petition was filed.

¶51

Four contentions are urged by the learned counsel. One is that when following Ext.P8 order of the Apex Court, when procedure under Section 5(A) is to be compiled with, objections should be considered by the Collector and that in this case objections were considered and Ext.P13 order was passed by the

¶52

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12 :4 :

¶53

Land Revenue Commissioner. Therefore, according to the counsel, there is violation of Section 5(A). The second contention raised is that, in the counter affidavit dated 12^th March, 2012 filed by the 3^rd respondent on behalf of the respondents, reference is made to publication of declaration under Section 6 only in the official gazette. Counsel contended that therefore the other modes of publication requiring publication of the notification in newspaper is not complied with. It was also contended by the learned counsel that having undertaken before the Apex Court, requirements of Section 5A will be complied with, after completing the enquiry, the respondents should have completed the entire procedure as laid down in the Act afresh. This according to the learned counsel was not complied with.

¶54

Lastly, counsel relied on Ext.P18, the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent in WP(C) No. 3360/09 before this Court and contended that. in that affidavit, it was stated that the Government of India directed the State Government to complete the acquisition proceedings before 30/6/09 and to complete the entire project including construction of houses before 31/12/09. It

¶55

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶56

:5 :

¶57

is also stated that if the said direction is not complied with, the funds allotted for the purpose would be lapsed and the entire scheme will be in trouble. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the time for implementation of the scheme in question has expired by 31/12/09 and the funds allotted by the Government of India is also no longer available. In other words, the argument is that the public purpose for which acquisition is initiated lapsed by 31/12/09 and therefore the acquisition cannot be continued in the absence of a public purpose justifying the same.

¶58

Two counter affidavits have been filed in this writ petition. In the affidavits filed, the contentions raised are denied. In so far as the compliance with Section 5A is concerned, respondents are relying on Ext.R3(b) report of the Land Acquisition Officer. In so far as the compliance of Section 6 is concerned, respondents are relying on Ext.R3(c), R1(b) and R1(c). Similarly answering the contention of the petitioners that the project lapsed, the contention raised in the additional affidavit filed reads thus:

¶59

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶60

:6 :

¶61

“4. It is submitted that sufficient funds have already been earmarked for the implementation of the projects covered by the already notified areas. The allegation that the funds have lapsed and hence, the project cannot be implemented is denied as false. True copy of the status of house construction in nine coastal districts as on 15/12/2011 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). It is submitted that as per Ext.R1 (a), from the total houses to be completed in Thrissur district 145 got entangled in the litigations and hence, could not be completed. Majority of the cases have been cleared by the respective courts, and only few number of cases are pending before the courts.

¶62

5. It is submitted that as evidenced by Ext.R1 (a), out of 145 houses that got entangled in court cases, 18 houses have been almost completed in Koolimuttom Village. The rest are yet to be completed for which sufficient funds are already earmarked for utilization. The following facts are also necessary for a proper adjudication of the issue in the writ petition.

¶63

It is submitted that the devastating Tsunami waves hit the coastal South India including the coastal village of Kodungallur and Chavakkad Taluks of Thrissur district on 26.12.2004. Many houses of these two taluks were damaged, many lost their livelihood and may people largely suffered due to lack for proper protective measures. Many people were evicted to temporary shelters and camps opened by the authorities. The State Government have declared 23 villages of this district including Vadanappilly village as “Tsunami affected” on the basis of the above facts. Most of the coastal communities are subjected to continuous seaerosion and damages to dwelling units every

¶64

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶65

:7 :

¶66

year. The Government is also making efforts to support these households by way of providing temporary shelters, livelihood, medical support etc. It has also become necessary that lasting solution is to be found for those households that are vulnerable to the devastations caused by nature every year. Additionally, resettlement and Rehabilitation of the people from these vulnerable areas to safer locations is a major part of the Government policy of resettlement under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. The Government have decided to implement a comprehensive housing programme for the rehabilitation of families who faced the wrath of Tsunami 2004 and those who were persistently threatened by the sea erosion.

¶67

In Thrissur district, 1066 families have been identified for resettlement, which includes 60 families in Vadanappilly village, living within 50 meters from sea shore. Most of households living in the coastal areas of Vadanapilly village are frequently threatened by sea erosion and Government is forced to shift them to relief camps during such occasions. In recent years, 100's of meters of sea coast has been lost due to sea erosion, causing loss of 'sea puramboku' land as well as private 'Patta' land. Around 77 families had been shifted to relief camps or houses of their relatives during the year 2011, 82 families during 2010, 85 families during 2009, 90 families during 2008 and 111 families during 2007. Hence, the public purpose for which acquisition are made is imminent.”

¶68

WP(C) No. 8446/12 is filed impugning the acquisition of

¶69

24.17 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.33/4B, 33/5, 33/6 and 33/7

¶70

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶71

:8 :

¶72

of Chendrapinni Village of Trichur Taluk. In addition to the contentions already raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5649/12, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P3, GO(Rt) No.2707/2007/DMD dated 4/7/07. According to the counsel, this Government Order laid down the guidelines for acquisition of land for the implementation of the tsunami rehabilitation project and in the acquisition of the property by Ext.P2 notification herein issued under Section 4(1) and the further proceedings, these guidelines have been violated. 9. WP(C) No. 5003/12 impugns the acquisition of 85 cents of land in Sy.Nos.43/1, 43/2A1, 45/2A1 and 61/13 of Pappinivattom Village of Trichur Taluk. Here again, in addition to the contentions already noticed, counsel contended that the notification dated 10/11/08 issued under Section 4(1) [which has not been produced by the petitioner], was issued by the Government of Kerala. Therefore, according to him, the report under Section 5A(2)(i) should also have been made to the Government of Kerala and not to the Land Revenue Commissioner. In other words, for the aforesaid reasons,

¶73

:9 :

¶74

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶75

according to the counsel, there is violation of Section 5A of the Act.

¶76

He also contended that Ext.P8 in this writ petition issued on 31/1/12 is the proceedings of the Land Revenue Commissioner rejecting the objections filed by the affected parties. Therefore, according to him, it was by Ext.P8 that the Government granted administrative sanction to the acquisition in question. On that basis, it was contended that the administrative sanction having been granted only on 31/1/12, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Ext.P9, GO(MS) No.419/2011/RD dated 15/11/11, by which the rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the Government of Kerala was introduced.

¶77

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

¶78

The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5649/12 is that enquiry under Section 5A of the Act should have been conducted by the Collector and according to him, in this case, the enquiry was conducted by the Land Revenue Commissioner, who issued

¶79

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12 :10 :

¶80

Ext.P11 in this writ petition. However, as I have already noticed, following Ext.P8, the common order passed by the Apex Court disposing all SLPs filed by the affected parties, the Land Acquisition Officer issued Ext.P9 notice, which is also produced as Ext.R3(a) along with the counter affidavit filed. Accordingly, the affected parties were given opportunity to file their objections, which were filed also. On that basis, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted enquiry and Ext.R3(b) report dated 18/11/11 was made by him to the Land Revenue Commissioner. Thus enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer as contemplated under Section 5(A)(2) and report was also made in this case as provided in the section.

¶81

In so far as Ext.P13 proceedings of the Land Revenue Commissioner produced in WP(C) No. 5649/12 is concerned, that was issued pursuant to Ext.P11 notice by which the affected parties were given a further opportunity to make their representations in the matter. Ext.P3 therefore is not the report as contemplated under Section 5(A)(2) and on the other hand, Ext.R3(b) is the report as contemplated under the Act. In the light

¶82

:11 :

¶83

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶84

of these facts, I cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of Section 5A of the Act.

¶85

Counsel then contended that in the first counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, reference is made only to Ext.R3(c) declaration under Section 6 published in the gazette. Therefore, he contended that the publication of the declaration in the newspapers was not effected and thus Section 6 is also violated. This contention stands fully answered in view of Ext.R1 (b) and R1(c) produced along with the additional counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent. These documents are the newspaper publication of the Section 6 declaration. Thus Section 6 declaration has been published in the gazette and also in the newspapers and there is no violation of Section 6 of the Act.

¶86

The other contention which was urged by the learned counsel was that once it was undertaken before the Apex Court that procedure under Section 5A will be complied with, the entire procedure including the passing of the award should have been complied with afresh. As already noticed from the facts, after

¶87

:12 :

¶88

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶89

Ext.P8 order was passed by the Apex Court, procedure under Section 5A was complied with, declaration was made and published as contemplated in Section 6, Ext.P14 notice under Section 9(3) was issued and award was passed on 23/2/12. Therefore, this contention also does not appear to be factually correct. However, in Ext.P17 notice issued under Section 12(2), reference is also made to Award No.10/09. It is relying on this, the argument was raised.

¶90

First of all, going by the averments in the counter affidavit, award was passed only on 23/2/12. Even otherwise, once the procedural requirements under the Act are complied with, even if the Award already passed is relied on, I do not think any material prejudice has been caused to the petitioners since their remedies are not foreclosed. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted.

¶91

Then what remains is the contention of the petitioners that the public purpose having lapsed by 31/12/09, the public purpose for which acquisition was initiated, is no longer in existence. On that basis, counsel argued that the acquisition is

¶92

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12 :13 :

¶93

illegal. In order to substantiate this contention, in addition to Ext.P18, the counter affidavit in WP(C) No. 3360/09, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5649/12 relied on Exts.P20 and P21(a). Ext.P20 was obtained from the 1^st respondent on Ext.P19 application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. In Ext.P20, it is stated that there was no proposal to construct any new building after April 2011 and that there is no budgetary provision. Ext.P21(a) is also an answer obtained to Ext.P21 query made under the Right to Information Act to the 1^st respondent. In Ext.P21(a) also, it has been stated that there is no proposal to construct any new building.

¶94

According to the petitioners, from Ext.P18 counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 3360/09 and Exts.P20 and P21(a), it was clear that the project lapsed on 31/12/09, that the funds allotted by the Government of India is no longer available, that there was no proposal to construct any new building after April, 2011 and that there was no budgetary provision for continuing the project. Therefore, according to them, the public purpose for which the proceedings were initiated, no longer survives for the

¶95

:14 :

¶96

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶97

acquisition to continue and hence the proceedings now continued is illegal.

¶98

Answer to this contention of the petitioners is found in the additional counter affidavit dated 12/6/12 filed by the 1^st respondent, paras 4 and 5 of which has already been extracted in the earlier portion of this judgment. Therefore, according to respondents, funds have already been earmarked for the implementation of the project and out of the buildings to be constructed, 145 are got involved in the litigations and the others have already been completed. Therefore, they assert that they want to complete this project which is already started and that there is no substance in the contention to the contrary raised by the petitioners.

¶99

I have considered the submission made by both sides. In Ext.P18, the counter affidavit in WP(C) No. 3360/09, what is stated by the 2^nd respondent therein is that the Government of India directed the State Government to complete the acquisition proceedings before 30/6/2009 and to complete the entire project including the construction of houses before 31/12/2009. It is also

¶100

:15 :

¶101

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶102

stated that if the directions are not complied with, funds allotted for the project will lapse and that the entire scheme will be in trouble. Ext.P20 is the answer given by the 1^st respondent to Ext.P19 query under the Right to Information Act. The question contained in Ext.P19 was whether the Government intends to construct any new building under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Project after April 2011 and whether there is any budget allocation for that purpose. In answer to this query, it is stated in Ext.P20 that the Government only intends to complete the project already undertaken and that they do not intend to construct any new house after April, 2011. It is also stated that therefore, for that purpose, which obviously is the construction of new buildings, there is no budget allocation. Ext.P21 is another query made under the Right to Information Act and the question was whether the Government had any proposal to construct any new house, treating any area in Kerala as tsunami affected. In answer to this query, the applicant in Ext.P21 was informed by Ext.P21(a) that the projects already undertaken under Tsunami Rehabilitation Project and implemented in nine coastal Districts of

¶103

:16 :

¶104

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶105

Kerala are in the final stages and that there is no proposal to construct any new house. It was relying on the statement in Ext.P18 affidavit and Exts.P20 and P21(a) referred to above that the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the scheme lapsed on 31/12/09, that the Government has no intention to construct any new house under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Project and that there is no budgetary provision for the implementation of such project. Therefore, according to him, there is no public purpose after 31/12/09 justifying acquisition of land invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶106

It is in answer to this contention, averments have been made in the additional counter affidavit, which show that according to the Government, funds have already been earmarked for the completion of the projects, which includes those covered by these writ petitions also. They have also produced as Ext.R1(a), a status report indicating the status of the houses under construction in the coastal districts as on 15/12/11. According to them, out of the total number of houses to be completed in Trichur District, 145 got involved in litigations and

¶107

:17 :

¶108

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶109

therefore could not be completed. It is stated that for completion of these buildings, sufficient funds are available and the Government proposes to proceed with the construction. Thus, although the Government of India appears to have extended time for implementation of the project only till 31/12/09, the Government had already initiated acquisition proceedings which were challenged by the petitioners at various stages. It was therefore that the implementation of the project also got delayed.

¶110

Affidavits filed by the respondents show that the proposal is not to implement any new project but to complete the project already undertaken by them. For that purpose, according to the respondents, sufficient funds are also earmarked. This stand of the respondents is not in any manner in conflict with what is stated in either Ext.P18 affidavit referred to above or Ext.P20 or P21(a). Therefore, when the respondents have categorically stated about the availability of the funds and their intention to proceed with the projects already undertaken by them, this court has no reason to doubt the genuineness of such claim. Further, apart from relying on the averments in the counter

¶111

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶112

:18 :

¶113

affidavit in WP(C) No. 3360/09, petitioners have not produced any material before this Court to conclude that the project has in fact lapsed or that funds are not available with the respondents. In such circumstances, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the project has lapsed and that the public purpose did not survive after 31/12/09 and hold that the land acquisition proceedings initiated is illegal for that reason.

¶114

In addition to the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 8446/12, which involve acquisition of 24.17 Ares of property situated in Chendrapinni village, contended that the acquisition is in violation of the guidelines framed by the Government of Kerala in Ext.P3, GO(Rt) NO.2707/2007/DMD dated 4/7/07. According to the leaned counsel, guideline No.3 attached to Ext.P3 contemplates acquisition of compact blocks of land and that contrary to Ext.P3, the land notified is separate plots of 24.17 Ares and 30 Ares. He also referred me to Clause (4) of the guidelines and contended that contrary to this provision, the site proposed for acquisition is situated 3 kms away from the sea.

¶115

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶116

:19 :

¶117

In my view, Ext.P3 at best is only a guideline. Assuming that on account of ground realities, a departure has been made from Ext.P3, that will not in any manner invalidate the land acquisition proceedings initiated fully in compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel on this contention.

¶118

Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5003/12, involving acquisition of 85 cents of land in Pappinivattom Village raised a contention that there is violation of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the learned counsel, notification under Section 4(1) was issued by the Government of Kerala on 10/11/2008. Therefore, the report as contemplated under Section 5(A)(2)(i) should have been made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Government of Kerala only and that contrary to the said requirement, the report in question was made to the Land Revenue Commissioner, who completed the proceedings under Section 5A. It is true that Section 5A provide for hearing of objections. Section 5A(2) provides that every objection made under 5A(1) shall be made to the Collector and

¶119

:20 :

¶120

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶121

the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard and that after hearing such objections and making such further enquiry, make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the Government where notification has been published under Section 4(1) by the Government.

¶122

First of all, in this case, notification stated to have been published on 10/11/08 is not produced by the petitioners. Secondly, the pleadings in this behalf raised by the petitioner is in Ground G of WP(C) No. 5003/12, which reads as under;

¶123

“(G) It is submitted that the procedure followed is also not correct since under Sec.5A, the report has to be submitted to the Appropriate Government and not the Land Revenue Commissioner, and therefore the order passed Ext.P8 is without jurisdiction.”

¶124

Due to non availability of the notification and on account of the vagueness of the pleadings raised, I am unable to accept this contention.

¶125

It was then contended by the learned counsel that only when the Land Revenue Commissioner passed Ext.P8 order dated

¶126

:21 :

¶127

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶128

31/1/12 the Government granted administrative sanction to the acquisition in question. According to him, if administrative sanction was granted only on 31/1/12, petitioner should have been given the benefit of Ext.P9 order issued by the Government on 15/11/11, by which rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the Government of Kerala was implemented.

¶129

First of all, there is no statutory requirement of an administrative sanction as contended by the petitioner. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner dealing with the objections raised under Section 5A. Such an order cannot be considered as an order according administrative sanction, for the reason that it is an order passed by the said officer exercising statutory powers. Further, by practice, administrative sanction is obtained at the initial stages of acquisition proceedings and not after enquiry under Section 5A. Therefore, I am not prepared to proceed on the assumption that Ext.P8 is the order by which administrative sanction was accorded by the Government and that for that reason, the petitioners should have been extended the benefit of Ext.P9 Government Order issued on 15/11/11.

¶130

WPC.Nos. 5003, 5649 & 8446 /12

¶131

:22 :

¶132

Therefore, this contention of the petitioner also has to fail.

¶133

Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners and for that reason, I dismiss these writ petitions. No costs.

¶134

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶135

Abdul Majeed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majeed v. the State of Kerala

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

Krishnan Nair Vs P.H.Kurian

K.M.Cleetus Vs the Secty.Kottuvally Grama Panchayat

Pullooni Shankaran Vs District Collector

Mr.M.I.Shihabudheen Vs v.M.Shamsudheen

Paulose Vs National Highway Authority of India

Bone Meals Indiana Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tharur Grama Panchayath