SAJU THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of certain lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 1214/10 (0.0364 hectares), 1216/1 (0.0431 hectares) and 1217 (0.0446 hectares) in Trichur Village. These lands along with some other lands have been notified for acquisition as per Ext. P1 issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On receipt of Ext. P1 notice, petitioner submitted Ext. P2 objections to the proposed acquisition. After receipt of Ext. P2 objections, the Land Acquisition Officer by notice dated 9-7-1990 which was received by the petitioner only on 11-8-1990, called upon the petitioner to appear on 16-8-1990 and to adduce evidence, if any, in support of his objections. Petitioner had requested for two weeks time from 16-8-1990 to enable him to make detailed submissions after legal consultations. On 16-8-1990 petitioner appeared through counsel and filed an application for adjournment by two weeks. Counsel was told that he may submit his additional objections as soon as possible and that the hearing would take place on 22-8-1990.

(2.) Under these circumstances, petitioner on 18-8-1990 sent detailed submissions as per Ext. P3 by registered post with acknowledgment due. In Ext. P3, it was also stated that it is necessary to obtain a copy of the sketch prepared by the fourth respondent Municipality and some other records to enable the petitioner to substantiate the objections. Ext. P4 is the application made by the petitioner to the fourth respondent requesting for copies of the relevant records, viz., copy of the sketch of the properties proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing a bell mouth, widening the road and constructing the shopping centre, copy of the resolution of the Municipal council pursuant to which the acquisition is proposed to be made, copy of the requisition made by the Municipal 'council to the Special Tahsildar (LA) and copies of other connected records, if any. Even though the documents were made available to the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner was not even granted permission for inspection of the same. Ext. P4 request was followed up by Ext. P5 additional application requesting the fourth respondent "once again that necessary steps may kindly be taken urgently to let me have the copies of the sketch and other documents on or before 29-8-1990". Petitioner thereafter received Ext. P6 letter dated 25-8-1990 from the fourth respondent expressing his inability to provide the petitioner with the records applied for, as the land acquisition proceedings are being conducted by the Tahsildar (LA).

(3.) Immediately on receipt of Ext. P6, petitioner addressed two letters dated 8-9-1990 by registered post, one to the Special Tahsildar requesting for a copy of the sketch of the property proposed to be acquired and another to the fourth respondent requesting for copies of the relevant resolution of the Municipal Council and of requisition made by the council to the Special Tahsildar. Petitioner also intimated that he is willing to remit the fee which is necessary for taking copies of the relevant records and that the copies may be immediately made available to him. Thereafter, petitioner was served with Ext. P7 proceedings dated 20-5-1991 passed by the Board of Revenue overruling the petitioner's objections as not valid enough to drop the acquisition proceedings and the land in question is required, for a bona fide public purpose. As per Ext. P7 the Board of Revenue while overruling the objections approved the draft declaration and sent for publication as required under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Ext. P8 is the sketch prepared by the petitioner showing the lands in the neighbourhood and the lands proposed to be acquired by the fourth respondent - Municipality.