BINOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail Ext.P31 notification issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha under the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Fair Compensation Act"); along with Ext.P36, which is the declaration issued by the said Authority under Sec. 19 of the afore said Act on various grounds as I will presently state.

(2.) Dr.V.N.Sankarjee - learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, edificed his arguments on the following broad assertions;

(3.) Dr.V.N.Sankarjee then went on to explain each of his afore submissions by arguing that the District Collector cannot be construed to be the "appropriate Government" under the provisions of Sec. 3E of the "Fair Compensation Act", since said Authority can only obtain the competence to requisition and not to acquire lands. As far as the 2nd limb of his argument is concerned, Dr.V.N.Sankarjee predicated that since Sec. 3E of the "Fair Compensation Act" only provides that District Collector shall be deemed to be the "appropriate Government" for an area not exceeding as may be notified by the Government, Ext.P31 notification - which takes in two different districts, namely Alappuzha and Kottayam - is incompetent.