K. SYAMALAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, we dispose of two connected appeals, W. A. Nos. 2184 of 2005 and 2238 of 2005, as the same emanate from a common impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The challenge posed by the appellants, who were petitioners in the original writs, is to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State. As the writs filed for the said purpose were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 1-7-2005, the petitioners have challenged the judgment aforesaid by filing the present Writ Appeals. The land acquisition proceedings were challenged on two grounds, namely that, there was no justification to invoke the emergency provisions as it deprived the petitioners of their valuable right to file objections under S.5 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the compensation to be paid to the land owners petitioners was not going to. be paid out of public funds, the same was rather to be raised from private individuals. If the requisite funds for payment of compensation were not to come out of public fund or public revenue, the acquisition proceedings would be void.

(2.) In so far as the first point with regard to the issuance of a notification invoking the emergency provisions is concerned, the appellants have no more subsisting complaint. The learned Single Judge has already held that the Government would reconsider the question of permitting the Panchayat to invoke the emergency provisions under S.17(1) and 17(4) of the Act for the proposed acquisition with notice to the petitioners also. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that pursuant to the observations or directions given by the learned Single Judge as mentioned above, a notice indeed has been given to the petitioners and their objections are under consideration.

(3.) The surviving ground thus pertains to funds having been collected from individuals for payment of compensation to land owners. Before we may, however, take into consideration the contention of the learned counsel on that count, it would be appropriate to mention that the public purpose mentioned was widening of a road. The proposal to have the existing road widened was made by the Panchayat and accepted by the Government for the paramount welfare of the public. A large number of people including the appellants, who visit the Thrippalliyoor Mahavishnu Temple situated nearby which, according to the Panchayat, is a very famous temple attracting large number of pilgrims, will be benefitted if the road was widened. It was a long cherished desire of not only the ordinary public, but also of the managing committee of Thrippalliyoor Mahavishnu Temple and several other social organisations in the locality to widen the existing Venniyoor - Thrippalliyoor road into a vehicular traffic road. On the basis of the resolution and the requisition made by the Panchayat, Government issued Ext. P4 order permitting acquisition of 400 square metres of land belonging to the petitioners. It was in view of the extreme urgency of the matter that the Panchayat resolved further to request the Government to invoke the emergency provisions of the land Acquisition Act. The Panchayat funds could not be utilised for this purpose and, thus, money was raised by donation from the public. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- had already been collected and remitted as per law.