ITI LIMITED Vs. TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals arise out of the judgment dated 01.01.2013 in a writ petition. The writ petitioner before the learned single Judge is Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., a company operating under the Ministry of Communications, Government of India. For the expansion of its activities, the petitioner company approached Government of Kerala for land at Palakkad in 1987. The request was for an extent of 100 acres of land and the said request was considered and land acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire 100 acres. In all, lands from five blocks were acquired and the earliest award was passed on 03.03.1987. Exhibits P2 to P6 are the said awards.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer raised a demand for Rs.2.5 crores which was deposited by the petitioner and the quantum of acquisition was finalised. An agreement came to be executed on 17.07.1987 between the petitioner company and the State Government. Certain conditions have to be fulfilled by the petitioner company, on demand by the State and one of the conditions was that the land shall be used only for expansion and other related works of the petitioner company and no land shall be used for the purpose other than for which it was acquired. Further condition was that buildings and other facilities which were proposed under the scheme of expansion shall be completed within five years from the date of transfer. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to carry out their obligations, the land was liable to be resumed and taken back by repaying the amount as finally settled, less 30% awarded for compulsory acquisition or estimated market value of the land at the time of resumption. Possession of the property was also taken by the petitioner way back in 1991.

(3.) THE company though started its expansion activities in the land acquired, as the petitioner company was declared as sick industry and referred to the BIFR, they could not proceed with the activities. However, the Central Government had prepared draft rehabilitation scheme for revival of the petitioner company, wherein a sum of Rs.4156.59 crores was earmarked for the said purpose. Meanwhile, the State Government had issued an order to resume the land treating the agreement between the petitioner company and the State Government as one coming under the purview of Part VII of the L.A.Act. According to the petitioner, in the absence of an obligation to execute such an agreement, such agreement was unenforceable and it is on purely a mistake such execution was done. There was no obligation on the part of the petitioner company to abide by such terms as it is a Government company within the meaning of Section 3(cc) of the L.A.Act. Therefore, Part VII of the L.A.Act is not applicable to the petitioner company. During the pendency of the writ petition, several documents were placed on record, indicating second respondent requires the land in question, for establishing a Medical College and as the land was unutilised by the petitioner company, the same is liable to be resumed. Challenging the action of the second respondent to resume the land, the writ petitioner sought for the following reliefs: