S PADMAVATHI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common 4th respondent in these original petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, is the Film Line Corporation, a partnership firm with two partners namely, Sivasakaran Nair and his wife. The petitioners in O. P. Nos. 3306/77, 4845/1977 and the minor son of the petitioner in O. P. 4859 of 1977 are owners in possession of certain lands in Sy. Nos. 495 and 496 of Cheruvakkal Village of Trivandrum District and these lands lie adjacent to about 40 cents of land belonging to Sivasankara Nair. The 4th respondent on 25-12-69 submitted an application to the State Government for allotment of a suitable land for the purpose of setting up a "Film Studio cum House of Culture Apparently, the State Government did not respond to this request. On 22-10-1974, he submitted another petition to the State Government stating that in the 40 cents of land he has put up certain constructions required for studio complex and nine acres of land very near this plot is available for acquisition and immediate occupation and requested that the land may be acquired for the purpose mentioned. He sought acquisition of 2.55 acres in Sy. No. 495 and 1.45 acres in Sy. No 496. The request was forwarded to Industries Department for processing. On 14-11-1974, the Regional Joint Director in the Department submitted a report to the Special Secretary of Industries Department recommending the request with some changes in the identity of the lands to be acquired. His note was sent to the District Collector, Trivandrum, the 3rd respondent, for remarks. The 3rd respondent, in due course, submitted report to the Government favouring acquisition under Part VII of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The State Government thereafter directed the 3rd respondent to examine in detail whether the purpose of acquisition constitutes a public purpose. The 3rd respondent after notice to the concerned land owners including the petitioners, and after receiving their objections, submitted report to the 2nd respondent. Board of Revenue, with a copy to the State Government, suggesting that the purpose of the acquisition would constitute a public purpose. The 2nd respondent also, in due course, reported to the Government recommending acquisition under Part VII of the Act. Meanwhile, the petitioners sent representations to the Board of Revenue as well as the Government raising objections to the proposed acquisition. On 18-5-1976, the State Government issued G. O. R. T. 536 of 1976 sanctioning or granting consent to acquisition of 3.70 acres in Sy. Nos. 493, 494, 495, 496 and 281 of Cheruvakkal Village, stating that the land is necessary for setting up a studio complex which is a public purpose and subject to certain conditions namely that the 4th respondent must be converted into a company and an agreement must be entered into as contemplated in law, an undertaking must be forthcoming to bear the entire expenses of land acquisition. An agreement was duly executed and undertaking was duly presented. The 4th respondent on 11-9-1975 submitted a requisition for acquisition of 3.55 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 495 and 496. The 3rd respondent, District Collector, on 14-7-1976 issued a notification under S 3(1) of the Act in regard to Sy. Nos. 495 and 496 and the same was published in the gazette dated 10-8-1976. Notification was also issued under S.6 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961. Individual notices under R.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules were also issued to the petitioners and others. The land owners submitted objections. In due course, they were served with notices under S.5 of the Act and R.5(b) of the Rules for an enquiry. On 8-1-1977, the 3rd respondent submitted the record of enquiry with a report to the 2nd respondent enclosing a draft declaration and agreement under S.44 of the Act on the basis of G. O. R. T. 536 of 1976. On 2-3-1977, the 2nd respondent informed the 3rd respondent that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be taken under Part VII of the Act since the 4th respondent is not a company and it could be taken only under Part II of the Act in which case instructions in the Kerala Land Acquisition Manual require an agreement in form No. XXIV. In due course, such an agreement was entered into. On 30-8-1977, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings making a declaration under S.6 of the Act to the effect that the 2nd respondent was satisfied that the land in question was needed for a public purpose and overruling the objections raised by the petitioners. The declaration was also published in the gazette dated 11-10-1977.

(2.) In September, 1977, the three original petitions were filed, evidently without being aware of the proceedings dated 30-8-1977 of the 2nd respondent and seeking to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings as illegal. Subsequently, the original petitions were amended incorporating prayer to quash the Board proceedings dated 30-8-1977 and the declaration published in the gazette on 11-10-1977. In O. P. 3306 of 1977, two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Similar counter affidavits have been filed in the other petitions also. On behalf of the 4th respondent, partner Sivasahkaran Nair has filed counter affidavits in all the original petitions.

(3.) Dr. Kochu Thommen J., before whom the original petitions came up for consideration referred the same to a Division Bench. The Division Bench, before which the cases came up for consideration and in which one of us (Poti Ag C. J.) was a party, referred the cases for hearing by a Full Bench in view of the importance of the questions arising thereunder.