LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P1 notice pursuant to the notification in the Gazette dated 20 2 1973 under S.3(1) and Ext. P2 declaration dated 2-1-1975 under S.6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are under challenge in this writ petition According to Sri K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, the counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of 90 cents of land comprised in T. S. No. 1338 on which the petitioner had desired to construct a residential building for her are liable to be quashed as they are tainted with malafides and are in colourable exercise of the power vested in the respondents.

(2.) The main argument advanced by Sri Radhakrishna Menon is that the contention of the respondents that the acquisition for Bilathikulam Housing Scheme under S.33 of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, should be deemed to be for public purpose cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the declared object as could be gathered from Ext. P1 in the present case is "for development of land for purpose of sale as house sites". He submitted that the scheme contemplated under S.33 of the Madras Town Planning Act, on which reliance is placed by the respondents, could only be to acquire land for the purpose of allotment of sites among members who constituted an association like a cooperative society for whose benefit the acquisition is made, not for sale He would contend that sale implies profit and the power vested in the respondents could not be so abused as to enable the Housing Board or similar agencies to make profit out of acquisition. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. M. I. Haider Bux ( AIR 1977 SC 594 ) where in Para.3 Jaswant Singh J., speaking for the Bench has stated as follows:

(3.) Sri T.C.N. Menon, the Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition He pointed out that the notification under S.3(1) of the Act was made as early as on 20-2-1973; proper enquiry was made and it was only after careful consideration of the objections that the draft declaration was approved by the Board of Revenue by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 2-1-1975 The writ petition is seen to have been filed nearly after six years from the date of the Gazette notification and four years after Ext. P2 proceedings accepting the draft declaration. It is submitted by him that the writ petition is highly belated and the grounds urged are only the repetitions of those put forward before the acquisition authorities and the Revenue Board.