RAMANTHALI P P SAMITHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for consideration in these cases is whether a notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 invoking the emergency provisions contained in S.19(4) of the Act to dispense with the enquiry under S.5 be struck down simply because the notification does not contain any reason for invoking those provisions, when there are materials brought out in the case which indicate that the authority who issued the notification applied its mind to the materials on which it formed the opinion which could be reasonably formed on those materials and if there is no mala fides.

(2.) The petitioners belong to the Thadathil Chal area of Ramanthali Desom, Thalipparamba Taluk, included in the lands to be acquired for the Naval Academy proposed to be started at Ezhimala. The challenge is against the notification dated 7-2-1983 issued under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 for short the Act. The main grievance of the petitioners is against the invoking of the emergency powers under S.19(4) of the Act to take the acquisitions out of the purview of S.5. The petitioners' case, shorn of unnecessary details, is: Going by the reports, the proposal was to acquire 1700 acres for the Naval Academy at Ezhimala. This consists of Ettikulam which is a seaward projection on the southern side and Thadathil Chal, a plateau on the eastern side in between two mountain ranges. The former is predominantly inhabited by Muslims while in the latter the Hindus form the major section of the population. Both the communities clamoured for the exclusion from acquisition or areas where they are mainly the population. A high power committee headed by a Member, Board of Revenue, Kerala after visiting the area, submitted a tentative proposal to acquire 2700 acres including the entire coastal belt on the western side of the Ezhimala main ridge comprising of Ettikulam on the south - west, Ramanthali Thara on the north - west and the Peechal area lying on the western coast of Ramanthali Panchayat. This included the entire belt between the Ezhimala ridge and the sea and this was ideal for the Academy as the land sloped towards the sea from the ridge and it was a contiguous area without any pockets left out from acquisition. The Thadathil Chal which lies beyond the main Ezhimala ridge was not included. But due to political pressure exerted on the Government certain areas were excluded because of extraneous considerations creating pockets in the land sought to be acquired for the Academy. In this matter, the Government yielded to the pressure exerted by the Indian Union Muslim League, excluded vast areas at Ettikulam near the Ettikulam Bay and included the Thadathil Chal area to compensate the deficiency. The Naval Academy being a defence installation the creation of pockets by large scale exclusion at Ettikulam was wrong from the security point of view. This happened because the petitioners have no godfathers in the ruling front. Though it was stated in the Parliament in reply to a question that the total extent required for the Academy is 1200 acres, now the actual extent of the land sought to be acquired is much more than that. Representations were made to the State and the Union Governments. But there was no favourable response. The petitioners were apprehending that the 2nd respondent State Government will invoke S.19(4) of the Act to make it impossible for them to invoke S.5 of the Act and file objections to the proposal for acquisition. At last, this materialised and the notification Ext. P9 (produced in OP. No. 3764 of 1983) dated 7-2-1983 was issued under S.3(1) of the Act and the acquisition was taken out of the purview of S.5 of the Act by invoking S.19(4). Going by the schedule to the notification, except a small strip of land on the western coastal line, the whole of Ettikulam area has been excluded from the acquisition while the Thadathil Chal has been included.

(3.) It was under the above circumstances that the petitioners approached this Court with these original petitions. The contentions raised in these original petitions are: This is not an acquisition which cannot brook a delay of 30 days. S.19(4) of the Act was invoked to deny the petitioners and others in the Thadathil Chal an opportunity to make representations against the acquisition. This is mala fide. The notification is significantly silent as to what is the urgency. S.19(4) cannot be invoked simply to suit the convenience of the Government. The Government should at least place before the court materials to justify their action in invoking the emergency provisions in the Act. In this case, it cannot be said that there was a proper consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter before issuing the notification. There was no application of the mind and an opinion was not formed that it was necessary to dispense with the provisions of S 5 by invoking S.19(4) of the Act. S.19(4) was invoked with the sole purpose of stifling the objections regarding the inclusion of Thadathil Chal and to hide the extraneous considerations which weighed with the Government in excluding vast areas in Ettikulam. The notification is hence vitiated by mala fides. To justify the invoking of S.19(4) at least the file must show the existence of something to be done within thirty days of the notification. The burden is heavily on the Government to prove this. The Navy was not very happy about the exclusion of Ettikulam.