BABU PILASSERY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners representing the public, challenge the decision of the Government to acquire only 1.34 acres out of the larger extent of two acres as desired by the Corporation, Kozhikode for establishing a play ground.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in Ext. P5 judgment there was a specific direction that the Corporation should furnish details regarding the source of funds for payment of compensation and all other details that are required by the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings and that on receipt of such details, the Government should issue Notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act within one month. As regards the building permit issued to the respondents 7 to 9 in the present Original Petition also it was observed that there would be a stay of such constructions for three months and that if no decision was taken by the Corporation within two months, these respondents would be free to develop their land. There was also an observation that as open land of such extent is rarely available in the Corporation area, the demand of the petitioners that the Corporation should take action when the land is available deserves consideration.

(3.) The above judgment was passed on 8.11.2002. Before that, the Corporation had taken Ext. P2 resolution on 27.9.2002 proposing acquisition of the entire two acres. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said demand of the Corporation and the directions of the Court are flouted while taking Ext. P7 decision exempting the 66 cents of the aforesaid respondents and in limiting the issuance of Notification to the remaining 1.34 acres alone. Challenge is also made with regard to Ext. P8 issued later on exempting the 1.34 acres alone from the Zonal provision in the master plan prepared by the Corporation. Questioning of Ext. P9 (same as Ext. R2(c)) which is the formal order referred to in Ext. P7 is also sought. In short the petitioners' demand is that the entire two acres proposed by the Corporation should be acquired and that the Government is without power to exempt 66 cents claimed by the respondents 7 to 9. In that regard the decision in Secretary to Government v. Sebastian ( 1988 (1) KLT 691 ) is also relied on.