V R THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that this court cannot give a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to acquire more land than what is required by the Company in an acquisition under part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/S. Larsen and Turbo Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1998 SC 1608). On our reading of this judgment no such proposition of law had been laid down therein. A notification issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Kerala has been produced by the learned counsel for the third respondent. There is no dispute that this notification does not include the ;land which the appellant now wants to be include therein. Originally, when a preliminary notification was issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the concerned land had been included. But, after enquiry, when the declaration was made under Sec. 6, the concerned land was excluded. We are of the view that no direction can be issued to the State Government to acquire the land which the third respondent company, for whose acquisition is made, does not want.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, as a result of the acquisition his land would be totally boxed in without any access to the highway. That is a matter for him to agitate in accordance with law in any other appropriate forum. We say so particularly in view of the fact that the third respondent offered to give a pathway of 4 feet which could be used as ingress and egress, but this offer was rejected by the appellant. We see no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.