NELVAYAL NEERTHADA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Acquisition of large extent of properties at the instance of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) and the subsequent declaration of land as 'industrial area,' followed by exemption granted under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)( in short Paddy Land Act) is the subject matter of challenge in these cases. W.P(C)No..24437 of 2010, W.P.(C) 18285 OF 2011 and W.A.No.1085 OF 2010 are in respect of the grievances projected by some owners of the lands,whereas the other two petitions i.e. W.P(C)No.15529 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.11534 of 2010 are styled as Public Interest Litigations.

(2.) The petitioners/appellants in the individual writ petitions/writ appeal challenge the acquisition proceedings on various grounds referring to violation of the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the alleged absence of 'public purpose', whereas the challenge involved in the other two cases is more with regard to the absence/obscurity in the Scheme, violation of various provisions in the statute, in particular, the 'Paddy Land Act'. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15529 of 2010 concedes that there is no challenge against the acquisition, but for the objection with regard to 'conversion' of the land contrary to the mandate of Act 28 of 2008. Almost similar contentions are raised in the other writ petition, ie. W.P.(C)No.11534 of 2010 as well; wherein the constitutional validity of Section 10 of the Paddy Land Act is also sought to be challenged, besides the challenge against acquisition.

(3.) The case on the part of the petitioners was put forth by Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15529 of 2010, Mr. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11534 of 2010 and Mr. Devan Ramachandran, the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.24437 of 2011 . No separate arguments were addressed by the appellants in W.A.No.1085 of 2010; presumably for the reason that almost similar contentions are being projected and considered in the other cases. The factual and legal position on behalf of the respondent KINFRA, with minute particulars as to the scheme of the statute under the relevant provisions of law, were advanced by Mr.G.S.Reghunath; the learned Counsel for KINFRA. The version of the Government was placed before the Court by Mr. P.I. Davis, the learned Sr.Government Pleader. Parties and proceedings are referred to, as given in W P ((THELAW)) 15529/2010, except where it is separately mentioned or dealt with.