MAVOOR PANCHAYAT Vs. REVENUE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Panchayat challenges the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the second respondent. Third respondent published Ext. P-1 notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 5-1-1993 to acquire an extent of 0.0110 hectares of land in Sy. No. 23/5 of Mavoor village. For the construction of a shopping centre the property was already acquired for the Panchayat and possession was taken on 25-4-1979. Due to paucity of funds construction could not be effected. Panchayat received Ext. P-3 notice from the Department of Local Administration to the effect that 2.72 cents of property vested in the Panchayat has to be taken back by the Government. Petitioner filed Ext. P4 objection.

(2.) Dominant contention of the petitioner is that the land which was already acquired and en trusted to it for a specific purpose cannot be acquired by the Government for another purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land was acquired for a specific purpose of the Panchayat and therefore it cannot be taken back by the Government on the pretext of widening the road. In other words, it is contended that once a property is acquired to the benefit of a party it cannot be subjected to further acquisition proceedings for a different purpose to benefit another. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the acquisition is intended for a public purpose viz. widening the road junction at Mavoor and as the Land Acquisition Act does not contain any provision barring such acquisition petitioner's contention is devoid of merit.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration is whether the land acquired for the Panchayat for its own purpose can be subjected to further acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for a different purpose by .the Government. The land belonging to the Panchayat is proposed to be acquired by the respondents for the purpose of widening the road junction at Mavoor. If the contention of the Panchayat that the land which was already acquired for a definite purpose cannot be subjected to acquisition proceedings for a different purpose is accepted it would virtually create a stalemate barring further development in the area. There is no provision in the Land acquisition Act which interdicts acquisition of a property on the ground that it was acquired for a different purpose on an earlier occasion. As the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated on the request of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads) Division, Kozhikode and as the petitioner has not established any malafides in the said action it cannot challenge Ext. P-1 notification. Contention that a property acquired for a particular purpose for the Panchayat cannot be acquired for another purpose by the respondents is not tenable. Merely because a property has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act the beneficiary cannot contend that the said property is immune from any future acquisition under the Act.