NANDINI THAMPATTI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in both these Writ Petitions are the land acquisition proceedings for the development of the Government Medical College, Manjeri, and for installation of a K.S.E.B sub-station for the said Government Medical College. The challenge is essentially premised on violation of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short), specifically on the non-consideration of an alternate place of acquisition, which has been recommended in the Social Impact Assessment study, under Sec. 4; and by the Expert Group, under Sec. 7. The outcome of these Writ Petitions would depend on the interpretation of "land acquisition at an alternate place", as also, the scope and ambit of the same. It requires to be noticed at the outset that this is the third round of litigation challenging the same acquisition; one among the earlier two, having been preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025, herself.

(2.) The following list of dates will unfurl the events, which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petitions: [Exhibits referred herein are cited according to the documents produced in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025].

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 would essentially focus on the non- consideration of the availability of the alternate place, as also, its feasibility. Learned counsel would point out that Ext.P5 is the S.I.A study report, wherein, there is no mention, whatsoever, with respect to the requirement of Sec. 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act. Coming to Ext.P6 report of the Expert Group, the submission is that the Expert Group specifically found that the feasibility of an alternate place requires consideration, as per conclusion number (b) to Ext.P6. (See, running page no.104 of the Writ Petition). It is in derogation of that, Ext.P10 Government Order under Sec. 8 of the 2013 Act has been passed, is the essential grievance. Learned counsel would submit that, inasmuch as 50 acres is available at a distance of 2.5 Kms, of which, the owners of, as many as, 25 acres are prepared to give the land free of cost, non-consideration of such a proposal is fatal. Learned counsel would rely upon a bench decision of this Court in K.J.James and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2025 ICO 1337] to emphasise on the significance of procedural lapses, which are liable to be strictly construed. Learned counsel would point out that Sec. 4(4)(e) and Sec. 8(2) have been violated.