LAWS(KER)-2025-6-24

K.J.JAMES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 30, 2025
K.J.James Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P(C).No.18680 of 2021 are the appellants before us, aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 6/1/2025 of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of this writ appeal are as follows;

(2.) The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, referred to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents to find that there had been sufficient compliance with the substantive and procedural provisions of the 2013 Act and hence there was no necessity to interfere with the acquisition proceedings that were now in an advanced stage where awards had been passed determining the compensation payable to the affected persons. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that while there were many persons who were affected by the acquisition proceedings, only two persons had chosen to challenge the same, and therefore the overriding public interest lay in allowing the acquisition proceedings to go ahead.

(3.) Before us, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Suresh Kumar P.K., assisted by Adv.Sri.K.P.Sudheer that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the importance of the particular procedural provisions under the 2013 Act, that were not there under the earlier enactment, and were inserted therein to ensure a first-level protection to citizens against an arbitrary deprivation of their property rights. In particular, he points to the fact that there was no decision taken by the District Collector in terms of Sec. 8 of the 2013 Act, as indeed he could not have, since the material he was to rely upon for taking an informed decision was the report of the expert group under Sec. 7 which itself had not considered relevant facts while submitting its report. He refers to the report of the expert group to show that there was no consideration of the issue of whether or not there was a legitimate and bona fide need for another Railway Overbridge in the area when there were two other such overbridges in the vicinity.