M N KOCHU MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Kerala envisaged a project popularly known as "Smart City". It is a dream project of the State, which is to be established in an area covering 1000 acres, This is to become a centre of global attraction, The Smart City is to be self contained one having every modern facility. As to establish such a massive project, the Government land was not sufficient and to make the dream project come true, a substantial chunk of land had to be acquired, the Government of Kerala vide notification dated 28.10.2003 issued under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1894', sought to acquire 45.5861 hectares (115.75 acres) of land for the purpose of KINFRA Export Industrial Park Development, The follow up declaration under S.6 of the Act of 1894 came to be issued on 15.10.2004.

(2.) In these two connected writ petitions bearing Nos. 2815 of 2006 and 3149 of 2006, challenge is to land acquisition proceedings for public purpose already indicated above. By this common order, we propose to dispose of both the petitions as not only the challenge is to the same very acquisition proceedings, but also the points canvassed for the setting aside notification under S.4(1) and 6 of the Act of 1894 are similar, The bare minimum facts that, however, need necessary mention have been extracted from W.P.(C) 3149 of 2006, as amended during its pendency. Petitioners are some of the owners affected of the notifications mentioned above of the lands situate in Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk. Ernakulam District, A perusal of the notification would reveal that the land has been acquired for development by Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'KINFRA', which has been arrayed as 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that 2nd respondent has two types of functions, namely, to launch projects and to work as nodal agency for export promotion of export businesses. It is an agency approved by the Ministry of Commerce for the establishment of Special Economic Zones, for short 'SEZ'. Zones, such as SEZ, are places where industrial activities are being carried out for producing commodities exclusively for export use. The 2nd respondent has many projects in Kerala, which include the establishment of a Rubber Park and Biotechnology park in Ernakulam District. It has, however, no other projects like establishment of Information Technology Park in Ernakulam District. As a part of Exim Policy, in order to achieve the State's involvement in export sector, Government of India decided to provide a share of the export earning to each State based on its export performance. The fund so allotted could be utilised by the State Government for creation of infrastructure facilities like new Export Promotion Industrial Parks, Electronic and other related infrastructure, equity participation in Special Economic Zone, EPIPs, EPZs, construction of roads, stabilizing power supply, development of minor ports and jetties and common effluent treatment plants, etc. Each project is being implemented through the Nodal agency of each State nominated by the respective State Government.

(3.) In W.P.(C). 2815 of 2006 the petitioners, in addition to the pleadings as made above, have also averred that the land, subject matter of acquisition, has all modern facilities. The place is without any problem and of all the facilities the KINFRA people have programmed to have the area acquired for expansion of their industrial park. In the year 2003 the land value in that area was rupees 1 to 2 lakhs per cent. The petitioners and other residents in that area were very much disturbed of the decision of the KINFRA to expand the KINFRA Park acquiring the properties of the petitioners also. But, they thought that if they were provided with proper compensation and if it is in public interest, let their property be taken without any delay, so that they can use the compensation received for the purchase of other property nearby. In the manner aforesaid, they could resettle in the nearby areas. For that, compensation had to be given to them immediately. Because of the development of the area under acquisition, the nearby area has become far more costly. The market value of the property adjoining the area has increased manifolds. The petitioners and other residents of the area, thus, made a request to the acquisitioning authority and also to KINFRA people that if the property is required, the same may be acquired immediately and compensation be paid to them without delay. It is the case of the petitioners that because of delay in finalisation of acquisition proceedings whereas they would be deprived of the lands, but would not be able to make alternate arrangements for them.