SREEMANUNNI NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 6 are the appellants in the second appeal. The suit was for a declaration to the effect that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by defendants 1 and 2 and the Award passed on 30.8.1978 in respect of the suit property are illegal and unenforceable and also for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the award and taking possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal. In the second appeal, the substantial questions of law framed read as follows:

(2.) The Trial Court framed necessary issues. The Trial Court found that the suit is not barred under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act since it is not filed to obtain any relief against a person or authority for anything done in pursuance of the Act, but one instituted to challenge the very acquisition proceedings. The Trial Court also found that the land was acquired for a public purpose. Issue No. 6 related to the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for. It was found that the plaintiffs have no case that they were not given notice under S.3(1) or under S.9 of the Act. Objections were filed to the notification under S.3(1) of the Act. The objection of the plaintiffs was that there is dispute with regard to title and that the house along with 1 acre of land should be exempted from acquisition. After the declaration under S.6 of the Act is made, the question whether the acquisition is for a public purpose or not cannot be challenged by the person from whom the land is acquired. After taking into the objections of the plaintiffs, not only that 17 cents were exempted from acquisition but the pathway leading to the plaintiffs house was also allowed to be used by the plaintiffs as well as others. The Trial Court also found that out of the 40 houses allotted, three were to the office bearers who were also connected with the land acquisition itself. The Trial Court found that that by itself does not mean that there was any colourable exercise of power.

(3.) In this case, the award was passed on 30.8.1978. Possession was taken on 7.9.1978 and handed over to the third defendant. There is no case that possession was taken in violation of any of the Rules contained in the Land Acquisition Rules. On these findings the Trial Court dismissed the suit.