NOCHIKKATTE MUSTHAFA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.242 of 2021 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 14/3/2025 of a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows: The appellant had approached the writ court challenging Ext.P2 order dtd. 5/10/2016 issued by the 2nd respondent District Collector, Kannur accrediting the 6th respondent as an agency for conducting Social Impact Assessment and submitting time bound reports. He had also impugned Ext.P7 notification dtd. 28/9/2020 issued by the 2nd respondent District Collector, Kannur appointing the 7th respondent as the Social Impact Assessment Unit as also Ext.P8 report dtd. 19/10/2020 of the 7th respondent and Ext.P9 report dtd. 6/11/2020 prepared by the Expert Committee constituted by the District Collector, Kannur. There was also a separate challenge to Ext.P13 order dtd. 11/11/2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, Ext.P11 preliminary notification dtd. 19/11/2020 issued by the 2nd respondent as well as a prayer for declaration that Rule 18 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Kerala) Rules, 2015 and the Form 7 prescribed thereunder were ultra vires the Act No.30 of 2013.

(3.) The crux of the arguments of the appellant while claiming the reliefs aforementioned was that Ext.P2 order appointing the agencies mentioned therein was per se illegal as it was passed without following the procedure as established by law. In particular, it was pointed out that the Social Impact Assessment Units for carrying out the Social Impact Assessment Study had to be empanelled by the appropriate Government after following the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act"], and in the instant case, it was the District Collector who had resorted to the selection and empanelment of the Social Impact Assessment Units for the purposes of the 2013 Act and Rules. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that although by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 3(e) of the 2013 Act, the District Collector could be deemed to be the 'appropriate Government' for the purposes of the 2013 Act, in the instant case, there was no justification for the issuance of a Sec. 4(1) notification by the District Collector since, going by the statutory provisions, the said notification had to be issued by the appropriate Government which, in the instant case, was the State Government. Various other contentions regarding the alleged prejudice that would be caused to the appellant on account of the acquisition proceedings and the determination of compensation were also highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant.