PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue raised being identical, these Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For convenience, I shall be referring to the facts pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 11499/09.

(3.) The petitioner owns 40 cents of land in Sy. No. 1440 of Kadakampally Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Referring to letter dated 19.3.2008 from the Project Director of KSUDP, Ist respondent issued Ext.Rl(a) order dated 24.4.2008, permitting acquisition of the lands mentioned therein for the purpose of establishing a waste treatment plant. In so far as it is relevant for these cases, the property in Sy. No. 1440 of Kadakampally Village is also included in Ext.R 1(a) order. Subsequently, Ext.P 1 Government order was issued on 30.10.2008 permitting acquisition of the properties mentioned therein invoking the urgency clause contained in S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). In this order, as against the property in Sy. No. 1440 mentioned in Ext.R1 (a) referred to above, the property included was those situated in Sy. No. 1410. Subsequently, notification under S .4(1) of the Act was published on 5.3.2009 and 7.3.2009, copies of which are Exts. P2 and P3. In these notifications, property included is that situated in Sy. No. 1440 and this notification also provided that the enquiry under S.5Ais dispensed with invoking powers, of the Government under S. 17(4) of the Act. It was in these circumstances, this Writ Petition was filed challenging Exts.P2 and P3 notifications in so far as it includes property in Survey No. 1440 and contending that there was no justification to invoke the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under S.5 A. It is also contended that property originally proposed for acquisition was the one in Sy.No. 1410 whereas in Exts.P2 and P3 notifications under S.4(1) of the Act, the property notified for acquisition is the property in Sy.No. 1440.