Disposed

M.Sakunthala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2021WP(C)/4140/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of two connected writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications. The court accepted RTI information indicating acquisition proceedings were already lapsed, leading to the closure of the writ petitions. The court did not disturb the previous interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions closed on the basis that the acquisition proceedings have already lapsed.

M.Sakunthala Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA,

¶4

1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15265 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M.SAKUNTHALA, D/O.NARAYANA KURUP, "SREENILAYAM", POST MORRIKKARA, KAKKODI,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

2 M.SUDHAKARAN S/O.NARAYANA KURUP "POURNAMI", POST KOTTOLI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SHRI.PRASHANTH KUMAR G.C. SMT.SREELAKSHMI SURESH SMT.M.MANJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2 SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 CALICUT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CALICUT- 673 020.

¶13

4 SECRETARY, CALICUT COPORATION CALICUT-673 020. BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRIVIDYA K

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).4140/2014, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA,

¶22

1943

¶23

WP(C) NO. 4140 OF 2014

¶24

PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 M.SAKUNTHALA D/O.NARAYANA KURUP, "SREENILAYAM", POST MORRIKKARA, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶26

2 M.SUDHAKARAN S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, "POURNAMI", POST KOTTOLI, KOZHIKODE.

¶27

BY ADVS.

¶28

SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SMT.SREELAKSHMI SURESH
SHRI.PRASHANTH KUMAR G.C.

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶31

2 SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶32

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶33

4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶34

5 CALICUT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CALICUT - 673 020. BY ADV.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.BINDUMOL JOSEPH, SC

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).15265/2011,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶38

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶39

W.P.(C).No.15265 of 2011 & W.P.(C).No.4140 of 2014

¶40

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2021

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

These two writ petitions are connected and filed by same

¶43

persons. Therefore I am disposing these writ petitions by a common judgment. Prayers in W.P.(C). No.15265 of 2011 are extracted hereunder:

¶44

a). Call for the records of the case and to quash all proceedings initiated in pursuance to Ext.P5 resolution by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶45

a(1). To call for the records of this case leading upto Ext.P11 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶46

b). Pass any order staying all further proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P5 resolution pending disposal of this writ petition.

¶47

c). Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶50

In the above writ petition, the main challenge is against Ext.P5 resolution of the Calicut Corporation, by which it is decided to acquire certain items of property situated in Kottooli Village. Subsequently the petitioners filed W.P.(C). No.4140 of 2014, in which the prayers are like this:

¶51

i. Call for the records of the case leading upto Ext.P5 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶52

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriated writ, order or direction commanding respondents 3 and 4 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 objections after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶53

iii. Pass an order staying all further proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P5 pending disposal of this writ petition (Civil).

¶54

iv. Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioners may pray from time to time.

¶55

In this writ petition, the main prayer is to quash Ext.P5, which is a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Court, by a detailed order dated 24.02.2014, stayed the notification. It will be better to extract the interim order dated 24.02.2014:

¶56

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶57

¶58

“Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Adv. K.D. Babu takes notice for the 5^th respondent.

¶59

An important question which would decide the fate of the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 5.12.2013 for the purpose of acquisition to establish a playground for Calicut Corporation, published in the official gazette prior to the coming into force of the Act 30 of 2013 arises for consideration, in this case. The question assumes relevance in the light of the fact that the said notification under section 4(1) was published in the two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality only subsequent to the coming into force of the Act 30 of 2013 as per section 114(1) of which the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stood repealed. The position in view of section 114(2), section 6 of the General Clause Act and section 24 of Act 30 of 2013 is also to be looked into in this context. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in

¶60

Bihar State Housing Board V. State of Bihar reported 2013(3) KLT 701 it is contended by the petitioner that for deciding the date of publication of notification issued under section 4(1), it is the date of the last among the notifications which is crucial and relevant. It is therefore, contended that though the notification was published in the official gazette prior to the coming into force of the Act 30 of 2013 taking into account the fact that the publication of the

¶61

¶62

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶63

notification in the two daily newspapers was subsequent to the coming into force of the Act 30 of 2013 the question whether it was incumbent on the authorities to conduct social impact assessment in terms of the provisions under sections 4 to 8 prior to the issuance of the notification for acquisition proceedings also calls for consideration. In the light of the importance of the questions involved I am of the view that it requires a deeper consideration. Therefore, it is only appropriate that all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 notification shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks.”

¶64

Subsequently, the interim order was extended until further orders on 21.07.2014. Now the matter came up for final hearing.

¶65

Heard the counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Calicut Corporation.

¶66

When these writ petitions came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners takes me through Ext.P11 produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P. (C). No.15265 of 2011. It is an information received by the 1^st petitioner from the Office of Special Tahsildar (LA), Kozhikode under the Right to Information Act. The information received as per Ext.P11 is extracted hereunder:

¶67

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶68

¶69

“മേ�ൽ സൂചനയിലെ� അമേ�ക്ഷ പ്രകാരം താങ്കൾ ആവശ്യലെ�ട്ട വിവരങ്ങൾ താലെ� നൽകിയി രിക്കുന്നു.

¶70

1&2. കളിസ്ഥ�ം നിർമ്മിക്കുന്നതിനുമേവണ്ടി മേകാട്ടുളി മേ-ശം റി.സ.52/4 മേ�ത് ഉൾലെ�ലെ5യുള്ള ഭൂ�ി അക്വയർ ലെചയ്യുന്നതിനായി E-2209/11 തിയ്യതി 05/12/2013 പ്രകാരം വിജ്ഞാ�നം പുറലെ�ടു വിച്ചിരുലെന്നങ്കിലും സ�യബന്ധിത�ായി തു5ർന5�5ികൾ സ്വീകരിക്കാതിരുന്നതിനാൽ പ്രസ് ത വിജ്ഞാ�ന പ്രകാരമുള്ള അക്വിസിഷൻ ന5�5ികൾ കാ�ഹരണലെ�ട്ടുമേ�ായിരുന്നു.

¶71

1. പ്രസ് ത വിജ്ഞാ�ന പ്രകാരമുള്ള അക്വിസിഷൻ ന5�5ികൾ കാ�ഹരണലെ�ട്ടുമേ�ായിരു ന്നതിനാ�ാണ് താങ്കൾക ് ക ഇത് സംബന്ധിച്ച മേരഖാമൂ�മുള്ള അറിയിപ്പുകൾ ഒന്നും ഈ ഓഫീസിൽ നിന ് ന �ഭിക്കാതിരുന്നത്.

¶72

1. ഭൂ�ി അക്വയർ ലെചയ്യുന്നതിലെനതിലെര ബഹു.ഹൈഹമേക്കാ5തിയിൽ സ�ർ�ിക്കലെ�ട്ട WP(C) No.4140/14 പ്രകാരം മേd അനുവ-ിച്ചതായും അതു�ായി ബന്ധലെ�ട്ട അനുബന്ധ മേരഖകൾ ഈ ഓഫീസിൽ നിന ് അഡ്വമേക്കറ ് റ ജനറൽ ഓഫീസിമേ�ക ് ക അയച്ചതായും ഫയൽ �രിമേശാധിച്ചതിൽ കാണുന്നു.

¶73

1. മേകാ�ിമേക്കാ5് മേകാർ�മേറഷൻ ലെസക്രട്ടറിയുലെ5 അർത്ഥനയുലെ5 അ5ിസ്ഥാനത്തി�ായിരുന്നു ഈ ഓഫീസിൽ നിന ് ന മേ�ൽ സൂചി�ിച്ച പ്രകാരം വിജ്ഞാ�നം പുറലെ�ടുവിച്ചത്. പ്രസ് ത അക്വിസിഷൻ ന5�5ികൾ കാ�ഹരണലെ�ട്ടതിനാൽ മേകാർ�മേറഷൻ ലെസക്രട്ടറിയിൽ നിന ് 2013 ലെ� നിയ�പ്രകാരം പുതിയ അർത്ഥന �ഭിക് ക യാലെണങ്കിൽ �ാത്രമേ� ഈ ഓഫീസിൽ നിന ് ന ഇനി അക്വിസിഷൻ ന5�5ി

¶74

¶75

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶76

സ്വീകരിക് ക യുള്ളൂ. അക്വയർ ലെചയ്യുന്ന ഭൂ�ിയുലെ5 വിസ്തീർണ്ണം എത്രയാലെണന്നത് നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്നത് അർത്ഥനാധികാരിയാണ്.

¶77

മേ�ൽ സൂചി�ിച്ച �റു�5ി സംബന്ധിച ് ച താങ്കൾക ് ക ആമേക്ഷ�ം എലെtങ്കിലുമുലെണ്ടങ്കിൽ ഈ �റു�5ി കിട്ടി 30 -ിവസത്തിനകം അ�ീൽ അധികാരിയായ ലെuഷ്യൽ തഹസിൽ-ാർ (എൽ.എ). മേകാ�ിമേക്കാ5് മുമ്പാലെക ആമേക്ഷ�ം അറിയിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.”

¶78

From the above information it is clear that the acquisition proceedings already initiated is lapsed. If that is the case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act will not stand.

¶79

Recording the above information, these writ petitions are closed.

¶80

sd/-

¶81

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶82

¶83

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶84

¶85

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15265/2011

¶86

`PETITIONER EXHI`	`BITS`
`EXHIBIT P1`	`COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED` `EXECUTED BY LATE NARAYANA KURUP IN` `FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED` `21.07.1984`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED` `BY LATE NARAYANA KURUP IN FAVOUR OF` `HTE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 17.4.1993`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL BEARING` `NO.92 OF 2000, SRO, CHEVAYUR`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE` `SECRETARY OF CALICUT CORPORATION DATED` `10.02.2010`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MEETING OF` `THE CALICUT CORPORATION COUNCIL DATED` `19.02.2004`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE` `1ST PETITIONER DATED 25.02.2010 BEFORE` `THE CALICUT CORPORATION`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P6 DATED` `03.04.2010 BY THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE CALICUT CORPORATION DATED` `16.11.2010`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY` `CALICUT CORPORATION DATED 30.12.2008`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY` `CALICUT CORPORATION DATED 21.01.2011`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER` `NO.1941/2011/LSGD DATED 17.08.2011`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY` `THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF` `THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND` `ACQUISITION), KOZHIKODE DATED` `21.12.2020`

¶87

W.P.(C).No.15265/2011 & 4140/2014

¶88

¶89

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4140/2014

¶90

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED
ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED BY LATE
NARAYANA KURUP IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER DATED 21.07.1984.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED
EXECUTED BY LATE NARAYANA KURUP IN
FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED
17.04.1993.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL
BEARING NO.92 OF 2000, S.R.O.,
CHEVAYUR.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE
MEETING OF THE CALICUT CORPORATION
COUNCIL DATED 17.02.2004.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
05.12.2013 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI
DAILY DATED 24.01.2014.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE RESPONDENTS 3
AND 4 DATED 01.02.2014.

M.Sakunthala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sakunthala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gcvd Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi Vs State of Kerala

Vysian Hamza Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Dr.Binu Ann Paul Vs N.a.Varghese and Others

Vijay Constructions Vs the Union of India

Pareed Vs the District Collector