AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C)No.13775 of 2024 is filed challenging Exts.P33, P34, P37, P40, P41, and P43, whereas W.P.(C) No.13659 of 2024 is filed challenging Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4.

(2.) I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.13775 of 2024 and the learned Advocate General on the interim relief.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13775 of 2024 raised the following contentions: The 1st petitioner is a religious charitable trust and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Trustee. The 1st petitioner purchased a rubber estate popularly known as 'Cheruvally Estate' as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed on 1/8/2005. After the execution of the title deed, mutation was effected in favour of the 1st petitioner and land tax was also remitted as evident from Ext P2 and P3. The petitioners submit that when the said property was in the ownership of the predecessor-in-interest, M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., a ceiling return was filed under Sec. 85(a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 by its Manager before the Taluk Land Board, Vythiri. The Taluk Land Board after enquiry, passed an order dtd. 2/7/1982, and with regard to the estates in Kottayam District, it was found that out of 3681.06 acres, 3549.42 acres have already been exempted from surrendering and no land was liable to be surrendered under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As per the said report, the Land Board exempted the balance area of 131.64 acres also and the said order of the Land Tribunal has become final, since the same has not been challenged. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there were a series of litigations between the petitioners and the State in respect of the subject property. Since the Government could not succeed in those litigations, they took a decision as evident from Ext.P19 minutes, to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 as a short-term measure and to appoint a Special Officer with wide and unbridled power to take over the properties. The Special Officer so appointed, by Exts.P22 and P23 orders declared the subject property as 'puramboke land' and issued Ext.P24 notice to the petitioners as per Rule 11 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules. The petitioners challenged Exts.P22 to P24 before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10640/2015, which was ultimately disposed of as per Ext.P26 judgment, whereby the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act was set aside holding that the title cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, which is intended only for eviction of unauthorised occupation and the title could be established only by an adjudication before a Civil Court and granted the State liberty to approach the Civil Court to establish the title. Though Ext.P26 judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, the same also ended up in dismissal as per Ext.P27 order. Pursuant to the same, the Government of Kerala filed a suit as O. S. No. 72/2019 before the Sub Court, Pala, seeking a declaration of title and the said suit is still pending consideration. While so, Ext.P30 order was issued by the Government directing the 2nd respondent to acquire the entire 2263.18 acres of land of Cheruvally estate, subject to the condition that the Government shall deposit the entire compensation before the court having jurisdiction invoking Sec. 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, 'the Act, 2013). Aggrieved by Ext.P30, the petitioner Trust filed W.P.(C) No.13332/2020, which was disposed of as per Ext.P31 judgment holding that the petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage and held that the question as to whether the Government can acquire the land over which it asserted right or interest, can be postponed to be decided to a stage when the Government initiates the land acquisition proceedings invoking the provisions of the Act, 2013, but set aside that portion of Ext. P30 order directing the District Collector to deposit the compensation amount before the authority referred under Sec. 77(2) of the Act, 2013. Thereafter by Ext.P33 order the Government accorded sanction to initiate proceedings under the Act, 2013 to acquire the property of the Cheruvally Estate. A perusal of Ext.P33 would reveal that though the initial proposal was only to acquire the land of the petitioners alone, the Government accorded sanction for acquisition of 2570 Acres of land in Erumeli South and Manimala of Kottayam District and an additional extent of 307 Acres outside the Cheruvally estate for construction and development of Sabarimala Greenfield Airport. Later, Ext.P34 notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, 2013 was issued by the 1st respondent appointing the 3rd respondent, an organ of the Government, to conduct social impact assessment study. The petitioners submit that said notification was issued with malafides and with ulterior intention to grab 1 st petitioner's property under the cover of the Act, 2013. The petitioners also submit that the Centre for Management Development - the 3rd respondent, which has been entrusted for conducting the social impact assessment study, is nothing but an agency of the Government and the entrustment of the social impact assessment study on the 3rd respondent is in clear violation of Rule 10(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Kerala) Rules, 2015 (in short ' the Kerala Rules, 2015'). By Ext.P36, the 1st petitioner submitted various objections regarding the adverse social and environmental impacts, but none of these objections were taken note of by the 3rd respondent agency. Alternative routes suggested were also not taken into consideration. The comparative study of feasibility and social impact was not assessed and the Government submitted Ext.P37 social impact assessment report, whereby the 1st respondent constituted an expert group as provided in Sec. 7 of the Act, 2013. It is contended by the petitioners that neither the expert group nor respondents 1 to 5 have considered various limbs of Sec. 4(4) and the adverse social and environmental impact and the absolute bare-minimum area required for acquisition, availability of alternate sites etc. They have also not taken into consideration the loss of source of drinking water, loss of source of water for cattle, loss of grazing land and plantations and the existence of place of worship, if the proposed acquisition takes place. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P41 order under Sec. 8(2) of the Act, 2013, according sanction to proceed with acquisition. Later, the Government issued Ext.P43 notification under Sec. 11(1) of the Act, 2013. The petitioners would contend that the purpose of the acquisition is mentioned incorrectly as "public purposes' whereas the same ought to have been "acquisition for publicprivate partnership projects" and the said stand taken in Ext.P43 is only to circumvent the statutory requirements of obtaining consent of 70% inhabitants mandated under Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, 2013. The petitioners submitted Ext.P44 objection before the 4th respondent.