AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to quash Ext.P49 notification issued by the 1st respondent/State under Sec. 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short). The petitioners also seek quashment of Ext.P41 notification and Ext.P45 Social Impact Assessment Report under Sec. 4(1), Ext.P47 Expert Group Appraisal Report under Sec. 7 and Ext.P48 Government Order issued under Sec. 8 of the 2013 Act. The acquisition in question is one pertaining to the development of the Sabarimala Greenfield Airport Project. In respect of the self-same acquisition, this is the third occasion where the petitioners approach this Court. The following list of dates will unfurl the essential events which ultimately led to the filing of the instant Writ Petition:

(2.) Heard Sri.Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Dhiraj Abraham Philip and Adv.Darpan Sachdeva on behalf of the petitioners; Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel on behalf of respondents 6 to 9. Perused the records.

(3.) In this Writ Petition, Exts.P45 to P49 are challenged essentially on two grounds, namely, (1) colourable exercise of power or, alternatively, fraud on power and (2) Non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of the 2013 Act. Under the first ground, it is the petitioners' contention that the proposed acquisition stems from a pre-concerted decision of the Government to take over the petitioners' property, having an extent of 2263 acres; and not based on a genuine study as to the suitability of the land, as also, the availability of alternate lands. In other words, the whole acquisition proceeding was initiated with an eye fixed on divestiture of the petitioners from the said 2263 acres of land, which allegation is levelled on the strength of the various events which transpired prior to the acquisition proceedings in question. A detailed reference to such events will be made during the course of this judgment, whereby the petitioners would allege that the Government was taking steps, one after another, by exploring all possibilities under various statutes, to deprive the petitioners of the subject property.