SHARLET Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issues raised in these Writ Petitions are connected. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, treating W.P.(C). 29890/10 as the leading case. Petitioners in these Writ Petitions challenge the land acquisition proceedings initiated at the instance of the second respondent in W.P.(C). 29890/10 for the acquisition of a portion of their properties for providing a road access to the IIIrd phase of the Techno Park.

(2.) Ext. R2(a) is a Master Plan that was got prepared by the Techno Park for the development of its 3rd phase. It appears that based on Ext. R2(a), the third respondent sought sanction of the first respondent to acquire an extent of 20 Ares of land in R.S. No. 251/part in Block No. 17 of Attipra Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, the third respondent in W.P.(C). 29890/10, it is stated that considering the urgency of the case, as explained by the requisitioning authority, the Commissioner (Land Revenue), being satisfied that the land is urgently required, ordered in exercise of the powers under Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act to dispense with the objections herein under Section 5A in this case, as per the Government Order No. G.O. (MS.) 30/2008/ITD dated 7.8.2008.