RAMOO AMMAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (now represented by her legal heirs) challenges acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act evidenced by Ext. P8. A building belonging to her "Ingledene" situated at Vellayambalam in the Trivandrum City, was rented to the 'Rocket Recreation Club' for running a club and a guest house. Members of the Club are the officers of the third respondent Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, called "the V.S.S.C." hereinafter. Petitioner states that on the persuasion of certain prominent citizens of Trivandrum, the building was rented on the understanding that it would be vacated, if need arose for petitioner. In 1984, petitioner requested second respondent to vacate the building stating that she needed it for her occupation. It is said that the place where she was residing was acquired for a public purpose, and also that she was not in a position to live there as it was not a healthy locality. By Ext. P4 dated 31-8-86, the office bearers of the club, informed her that they would try to vacate the premises by 31-12-86. It was not vacated by that date, and by Ext. P6 series letters she reiterated her request. The letters did not elicit any reply. Upon that, she filed an application, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on 7-7-87, R.C.P. 70/87. In a matter of days, Ext. P8 notification dated 31-7-87 under S.4(1) read with S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act called 'the Act' hereinafter was issued, taking immediate possession of the property, dispensing with the enquiry under S.5A of the Act. Necessity for a place to park vehicles belonging to the V.S.S.C., and necessity for setting up a policlinic, are the public purposes stated in Ext. P8.

(2.) Petitioner would submit that the acquisition is vitiated by malafides. The sequence of events was highlighted to support this contention. Within days of filing the petition for eviction, Ext. P8 was issued. There could be no urgency when another place was available for parking the vehicles even on the day of the notification, and there was one hospital under the V.S.S.C., submits petitioner. She states that acquisition is only a guise to retain the club and the guest house. By Ext. P9(a), the Government of India had conveyed the concern of the Prime Minister to all the State Governments about reported extravagance in acquiring lands, also requesting State Governments to exercise restraint in the matter, considering scarcity of resources. Ignoring these, land in the most expensive area of Trivandrum was acquired to retain the recreation club and guest house at enormous cost to the exchequer, and to spite the petitioner, submits counsel. It is also submitted that parking the vehicles of the V.S.S.C. at a place 18 Kms. away (it is so stated by counsel for third respondent) from their premises would add to recurring fuel costs. These are features which demonstrate colourable exercise of power, according to petitioner.

(3.) In answer, the third respondent V.S.S.C. submits that petitioner has no need for the building, that the illness put forward by her is pretended, and that any promise given by the officials of the club could only be the result of "pestering" by the petitioner. It is stated that the area (50 cents) available with the V.S.S.C. for parking vehicles, was insufficient and that the land of petitioner (35 cents) is needed to meet the requirements. The State in a brief counter affidavit submits that they were satisfied about the existence of a public purpose, apparently because the V.S.S.C. told them that a public purpose existed.