AUGUSTINE KURUVILLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayers in all these writ petitions are identical. The facts are elaborately stated in Writ Petition No. 15026/2007. Hence that writ petition is taken as the leading case. The petitioners are challenging a combined notification issued by Land Acquisition Officer under S.4(1) read with S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act for Short).

(2.) The petitioners in WP (C) 15026 of 2007 are the owners of 5 acres of land in Kakkanadu. The 1st petitioner is the father and power of attorney holder of petitioners No. 2 and 3. The 3rd respondent published Ext. P3 notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 19/10/2005. Ext. P3 was issued invoking emergency clause under S.17(4) of the L.A. Act. Serial Nos. No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Ext. P3 notification are properties owned by the petitioners. The petitioners filed objection before the Honourable Minister for Revenue challenging the veracity of invoking the emergency clause and also praying that their land may be exempted. It was averred that at present the petitioners are running industrial unit for manufacturing tail light switches. The 1st petitioner is an Electrical Engineer and the second petitioner is an electronics and Electrical Engineer holding M.S. degree obtained from U.K. and they intend to develop a concern of their own for which the properties are absolutely essential. Their request was turned down on the ground that since emergency clause was invoked, it was not possible to consider their claim. It was averred that no reason for invoking the emergency clause was disclosed. It is contended that S.4(1) notification was published in the Mathrubhumi daily on 19/10/2005. The 2nd respondent issued Ext. P8 notification under S.6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 04/11/2006. It was averred that Ext. P8 was issued after the expiry of more than one year. Thereafter petitioners were served with notice under S.9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, and they had filed their objections. They were served with a notice directing to vacate the land forthwith. It was averred that no reasons to invoke the emergency clause were disclosed in the notifications. It is compulsory on the part of the acquisition authority to disclose the reasons for the emergency. Appropriate Government was required to consider the need for dispensing with enquiry under S.5A of the Act because dispensing 5A enquiry is fatal to the acquisition proceedings. It was also averred that there was no proper hearing though notice under S.9(3) of the Act was issued. It was averred that copies of the award were not served on the petitioners. It was averred that the respondents are trying to take possession of the property without offering 80% of the amount though urgency clause is invoked. It was averred that the Government want to take possession of the property and sell the property to third parties like Teecom for an exorbitant amount. It was averred that there is no public purpose at all and the purpose stated is purely a commercial one.

(3.) The 3rd respondent Land Acquisition Officer filed a counter affidavit denying all the averments raised in the writ petition. It was averred that as per proceedings No. C 10-61778/04 dated 05/01/2005, the District Collector Ernakulam appointed Special Tahsildar (LA) Kochi Refineries Limited as the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of 20.57 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 640, 641, 665, 666, 686, 687 and 689 of Kakkanadu Village of Kanayannur Taluk for the purpose of expansion of Infopark. It was averred that the Infopark was the requisitioning Authority and they had requested for acquisition of the property because there was an ever growing demand from national and international entrepreneurs for allotment of land in Infopark. It was also averred that if the land is not made available immediately the entrepreneurs are likely to locate their units elsewhere. It was averred that bringing IT/ITES companies to the State of Kerala will give a big boost to the economy and will also provide a lot of employment opportunities to the youths. In view of the great demand from the national and international entrepreneurs, it became necessary to acquire the land urgently and hence administrative sanction was granted to invoke emergency clause for acquisition of 20.57 acres of land as required by the Infopark. In the counter affidavit the details of the property acquired from each of the petitioner and the compensation awarded to each of them are stated.