K.K.SEBASTIAN ANATHANAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition carries challenge against Exts.P11 and P12 which are respectively the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the order of sanction passed by the second respondent in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for dispensing with hearing of objections under Section 5A in respect of acquisition of the proposed land mentioned therein for the purpose of construction of Kanjirappally Town by-pass. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the dispensation of the enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act in respect of the proposed acquisition. It is contended that dispensation of Section 5A enquiry is possible and permissible only if the Government form an opinion regarding the existence of urgency in terms of the provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act or on account of an unforeseen emergency in terms of Section 17(2) of the Act. In essence, the petitioner did not challenge the power of eminent domain of the Government whilst, his challenge is only with respect to the deprivation of the invaluable right available to him by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The facts and circumstances that constrained the petitioner to raise such a challenge against the aforesaid proposed acquisition are as hereunder:-

(2.) SEPARATE counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 2, 5 and 7.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, the Executive Engineer, Roads and Bridges Division, Kanjirappally, it is admitted that Ext.P2 proposal was submitted earlier. The averments of the petitioner regarding the first proposal and the revised proposal to the extent of its alignment, estimation and width of the road proposed, as per Ext.P2 and as per revised Ext.P3, were admitted. The reasons alleged by the petitioner for changing the alignment as proposed in Ext.P2 have been refuted therein. It is stated therein that implementation of the original alignment would affect the rubber plantations as also many residential plots. It is also specifically stated therein that in case of implementation of the new alignment only three residential plots would be affected whereas implementation of the original alignment would affect several residential plots. It is further stated therein that implementation of the original alignment would necessitate acquisition of properties of a prime Higher Secondary School in the aided sector and further that the length of the by-pass as per the new alignment would be lesser than the originally proposed one. The implementation of the project is required for averting the traffic congestion in the area and that the urgency clause was invoked after taking into consideration of all the relevant aspects, it is stated therein.