AJI JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions challenge land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The petitioners are all owners of properties that are the subject matter of acquisition. All the lands are sought to be acquired pursuant to a common notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Since the contentions advanced are identical, these writ petitions are all considered together. W.P.(C) No. 26928 of 2012 is treated as the leading case. The parties as well as the documents produced are referred to in the manner in which they are described in the said petition. The acquisition in the present case is for the improvement of the Parallel Road from the Mini Civil Station to Pala-Kozha Road. Pala is a bustling up-country town that is fast developing into a busy township. The improvement of the road is intended to ease the traffic congestion, which is a common feature in Pala town. The short facts of the case are the following:

(2.) At this stage, the first petitioner along with some others are said to have submitted Ext.P15 representation to the Chief Engineer, PWD, objecting to the acquisition on the ground that a five storied building that belong to them would be lost in the acquisition. They followed up Ext.P15 with another representation to the Chief Minister, a copy of which is Ext.P16. Various other representations also appear to have been submitted. It is stated that, there was no reply to the above representations.

(3.) In the above circumstances, a notification dated 18.2.2011 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying the lands of the petitioners herein for acquisition. As per Ext.P19, the Commissioner of Land Revenue directed that the urgency clause under Section 17(1) be invoked, thereby dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The proceedings were challenged by the petitioners as well as the other land owners in a batch of writ petitions before this Court. The writ petitions were admitted and an interim order of stay of dispossession of the petitioners was granted on 29.6.2011. Later on, the writ petitions were all disposed of by a common judgment dated 5.6.2012, evidenced herein by Ext.P21. As per Ext.P21, this Court set aside the action of the authorities in invoking the urgency clause, with the following direction: