KOCHUVARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. In the Writ Petition, he questioned the validity of the land acquisition proceedings by which the premises which were being occupied by him as a tenant were acquired by the Panchayat alongwith some other property, for construction of a market complex. The Panchayat passed a resolution on 26-3-1983. That was a unanimous resolution supported by both the majority party as well as the opposition group. Pursuant to that, a notification under S.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was issued op 10-4-1984 and a declaration under S.6 was made on 5-5-1987. In the enquiry made under S.5(A), various contentions raised by the appellant and several others were rejected on 26-3-1987 as per Ext. P5. The allegation of mala fide made by the appellant was also rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner raised two points before the learned Single Judge. The first point relates to the scope of S.65 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. According to the appellant, the panchayat is not entitled to ask the Government to initiate land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act unless the purpose related to the discharge of the functions 'imposed' on the Panchayat by the Act. According to the appellant, establishment of the market complex might come under the non mandatory functions stated in S.57 (2) of the Act and not in relation to the mandatory duties imposed under S.57(1) of the Act. Appellant contends that in as much as the requisition for a market cannot be said to be mandatory duty falling within S.57(1) of the Act, the Panchayat should not have sought the use of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act under S.65 of the Act. The second point raised before the learned single Judge relates to malafides on the part of the Panchayat.

(3.) The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the Panchayat could invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act under S.65 even though the acquisition relate to the function of establishment of a market falling within S.57(2) of the Act. The learned single Judge also rejected the plea of malafides pointing out that the resolution of the Panchayat dated 26-3-1983 was also supported by the opposition group in the Panchayat and that so far as the rent control case between the parties is concerned, the said case was filed by the appellant on 13-4-1983, long subsequent to the resolution of the Panchayat regarding the land acquisition. The learned Judge also disregarded the cancellation of the licence of the appellant and observed that the licence appears to have been cancelled because the appellant was slaughtering the animals not at the specified place, but in the shop itself. Thus there was no malafides. The learned Judge thus rejected both the contentions and dismissed the writ petition.