NOOR MOHAMMED Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this petition is to quash Ext. P3 notification issued for the acquisition of a property, 0.1012 hectares in extent, in survey No. 79/4 in Nagalassery Amsom Desom belonging to the petitioner's father. The 1st respondent is the District Collector, Palghat; the 2nd respondent the Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer of Ottappalam and the 3rd respondent the Nagalassery Panchayat represented by its Executive Officer.

(2.) The petitioner is a medical graduate and is at present doing his post graduate course in surgery in the Medical College, Trivandrum. His wife is a practising doctor The petitioner's father wanted to settle him and his wife in life and therefore decided to construct a nursing home in the land in question. The construction of the nursing home is half way through and a sum of Rs. 40,000 had already been spent for the construction. A well for the use of the nursing home had been dug and its sides were dressed The petitioner's expectation, at the time be filed this petition, was that the construction could be completed within a period of three months.

(3.) In January, 1981 the petitioner came to understand that the Posts and Telegraphs Department was interested in acquiring the land. Thereupon the petitioner's father submitted a representation Ext. P1 dated 28-1-1981 to the 1st respondent pointing out the need to retain the land for the petitioner and his wife and bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent various other properties suitable for this purpose and stating that the construction of a nursing home had already been started. On 3-3-1981 the 1st respondent wrote back to the petitioner as per Ext. P2 stating that no requisition for the acquisition of the land had been received from the Posts and Telegraphs Department. Therefore he proceeded with the construction of the nursing home. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came across Ext. P3 notification under S.3(1) and S.19(4) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The purpose recited in Ext. P3 is the construction of a new bus stand and a shopping centre for the 3rd respondent. When the 1st respondent sent Ext. P2 letter there was no whisper about the land being necessary for the purpose of the Panchayat. The petitioner's case in the petition is that the exercise of power under S.19(4) of the Act is totally mala tide and is made to subserve the ends of the President of the 3rd respondent who has considerable political influence over the Government. The attempt of the 3rd respondent to deprive the petitioner of the land is mala fide. The petitioner contends that the emergency put forward in Ext. P1 is a dishonest statement and is a fraud on the power under S.19(4) of the Act. The construction of the bus stand and shopping centre is in no sense a purpose which merits the stringent provisions of S.19. The petitioner is virtually presented with a fait accompli in the combined notification under S.3(1) and S.19(4) of the Act.