ELSTONE TEA ESTATES LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the early hours of July 30, 2024, the picturesque Wayanad District in Kerala witnessed India's worst-ever landslide triggered by torrential downpour, devastating three villages - Chooralmala, Mundakkai and Punchirimattom. The scale of destruction was unimaginable. The entire villages were swept away, claiming 251 lives, injuring many, and leaving more than 47 people missing. Besides, 1555 houses were totally damaged, and 452 houses were partly damaged. The district known for its fertile landscape and agricultural prosperity was plunged into despair.

(2.) The State Government, immediately after the landslide, came forward with a plan for a comprehensive rehabilitation process for the survivors. It took a decision to build a model township to rehabilitate displaced families permanently and restore the livelihood of the region as a part of disaster management measures in the land having an extent of 65.41 Hectares in Block No.28, Sy. No.366 of Kottappadi Village, Vythiri Taluk in Nedumbala Estate (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property No.1') and another land having an extent of 78.73 Hectares in Sy. No.88/1 in Block No.19 in the Elstone Tea Estates (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property No.2'). On 4/10/2024, the Government issued GO(Rt) No.11/2024/DMD (for short, GO dtd. 4/10/2024) according sanction and approval for setting up a model township in the subject properties for rehabilitating the disaster victims and to take over the subject properties under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short, the DM Act, 2005). The petitioner company in WP(C) No.36436/2024 who claims to be the title holder in possession of the subject property No.1 and the petitioner company in WP(C) No.36125/2024 who claims to be the title holder in possession of the subject property No.2 challenges GO dtd. 4/10/2024 mainly on the ground that it was issued beyond the powers under the DM Act, 2005 and is violative of the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is specifically alleged in the writ petitions that right to property being a constitutional right guaranteed under the Constitution, the Government is not entitled to take over the land from the private entity by resorting to the provisions of the DM Act, 2005 without payment of compensation. The petitioners have also attributed malafides and malice against the Government.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed a statement in both the writ petitions raising identical contentions. It is contended that the writ petitions are premature in view of the fact that the Government has not directed the petitioners to surrender the landed properties mentioned in the GO dtd. 4/10/2024 but has only accorded in principle, sanction to the District Collector, Wayanad, to take over the land proposed for rehabilitation/relocation of landslide victims. It is further contended that around 1210 families who were rendered homeless as a result of the landslide are accommodated temporarily on rented premises, and thus, it is a very urgent and imminent necessity to rehabilitate them permanently as part of disaster management measures taken. Accordingly, the District Collector who is the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, 'DDMA') identified the subject properties for utilizing the same for rehabilitation and reconstruction after taking into account all relevant factors and the suitability of the land considering environmental feasibility, viability and also the fact that it is free from landslide proneness and gave a proposal to the Government. The Government considered the proposal and, after due deliberation, decided to take possession of the subject properties, invoking the provisions of the DM Act, 2005, and GO dtd. 4/10/2024 was issued, accepting the proposal and granting in-principle approval for initiating proceedings for taking possession of the same. It is contended that the Government is well within its power to take possession of the subject properties for disaster management invoking the provisions of the DM Act, 2005. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the attempt of the Government is to acquire property without payment of adequate compensation by invoking the provisions of the DM Act, 2005 has been answered assuring that appropriate and adequate compensation will be paid to the persons who are eligible and entitled to receive the same and while determining the compensation, all relevant factors will be considered by the Government. It is also contended that the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India is in no way affected by the impugned proceedings. The 1st respondent has disputed the title of the petitioners over the subject properties as well.