V.ALICE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who is the Perambra Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition against the State of Kerala and others challenging G.O.(Rt) No.2219/03/RD dated 29.7.2003 to reconvey the 1.36 acres of land of Malabar Market Committee in Sy.No.84/2A3 of Koyilandy taluk to the third respondent. Petitioner's case is that for the purpose of Malabar Market Committee, about 30 years back, the Government initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for acquiring an extent of 1.36 acres of land situated in Sy.No.84/2A3 in Menhaniam amsom in Koyilandy taluk. Another extent of 7 cents adjacent to the property belonging to one Sri.T.V.Moosa Haji was also acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. Both these lands were taken possession adequately compensating the owners of the land under the said Act. As per the instructions, when any land required for a public purpose is not required for that purpose, the District Collector shall ascertain from Government Departments and the local bodies concerned whether they require that land for their purpose. If that land is needed by the Government Department or local bodies, the District Collector should take further action for the transfer of land and accordingly the petitioner Panchayat approached the District Collector to allot the land in favour of the Panchayat on payment of market value vide Ext.P2. In pursuance to Ext.P2 decision, the President of the Grama Panchayat made a request vide Ext.P3 to allot the land in favour of it and accordingly the Collector, vide Ext.P4, informed the President of the Grama Panchayat to approach his office for negotiation after sale notification to the Government, the Panchayat, being a Government organization. The District Collector recommended the case of the Grama Panchayat to the Principal Secretary vide Ext.P5 letter dated 14.2.2003. As the matter stood thus, the third respondent filed a writ petition, O.P.No.8263/2003. This Court, by Ext.P8 judgment dated 11.3.2003 directed as follows:

(2.) IN pursuance to the said judgment, the Government considered the representation of Kalyani Amma, the third respondent, and allotted the land in favour of Kalyani Amma on remittance of the compensation amount with normal bank rate of interest (current rate) upto the date of reconveyance or the current market value of the land, whichever is higher, as a special case. Petitioner challenges this on the ground that once the Government acquired the land, it should be assigned to a Government organization and it should not be reconveyed to the owner of the land and instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose. According to the petitioner, it, being a Governmental organization, should be allotted land on payment of market value. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government wherein it is specifically averred that land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Malabar Market Committee which was established under Section 4 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 (Madras Act XX of 1933) as per G.O.(MS) No.857 dated 6th May, 1950 of Food and Agricultural Department, Government of Madras with the object of better regulation of buying and selling of commercial crops and establishment of regulated markets in the Presidency of Madras. After the re-organisation of State in 1956, the Act was adopted by the Kerala State under the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957 and continued to operate in the Malabar area alone. A batch of Traders and Oil Millers licensed under Section 5 of the said Act filed writ petition before this Court challenging the enforcement of the Act in one part of the State alone, namely the Malabar area. The litigation continued for years and on 19.2.1998 this Court in O.P.No.13907/94 declared the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 prevailing in the erstwhile Malabar area of Kerala as unconstitutional and void rendering the Act and the Malabar Market Committee inoperative. The aim of the the Malabar Market Committee was to establish regulated market for notified crops and to eliminate middlemen between traders and growers and for this purpose, the Government acquired 1.43 acres of land in Sy.No.84/2A3 of Koyilandy taluk. But since the Malabar market committee became unconstitutional and void due to this Court's order dated 19.2.1998, the Government as per G.O.(MS) No.107/02/AD dated 12.6.2002 appointed the District Collector, Kozhikode as the Administrator and Liquidator of the defunct Malabar Market Committee and authorised to dispose of the assets of the Committee through tender/auction or through negotiation (where buyers are Governmental organisation) to meet its liabilities such as arrear of salary/pension to the employees and pension to the members of the defunct committee etc. Accordingly, auction of the property was published in leading English and Malayalam newspapers. At this stage, the Perambra Panchayat authorities expressed their willingness to purchase this property for some public purpose and directed them to approach the District Collector, Kozhikode for negotiation in the matter. In the meanwhile, Kalyani Amma from whom 1.36 acres of land was acquired, filed a petition before the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Thiruvananthapuram for reconveyance of the land acquired from them and moved a petition before this Court for a direction in her favour. In this case, this Court has given direction to the Revenue Secretary to hear the petition of Kalyani Amma and issued a speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai [(1997 (2) KLT 217 (SC)]. In the said decision the Court observed that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Syed Akbar [A.I.R. (2005) SC 402]. The factual matrix of the judgment of the Apex Court has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the Government, having fully exercised its discretion in favour of the respondents, I am not persuaded to interfere with the same. In view of the fact that the petitioner has no subsisting right in the subject matter of the writ petition and the Panchayat has not filed an application for impleading, it can only be held that the Panchayat has no grievance as against Ext.P9 order. Hence, I need not go into the other aspects of the matter. If the petitioner wants any land, he can apply to the Government for acquisition and allotment. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.