ITTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the Government has got itself into trouble due to lack of proper planning, in a hurry to implement projects without proper schemes. That is obvious from the facts of this case.

(2.) There are 10 petitioners in this original petition. The lands belonging to these petitioners were taken possession of by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16-2-1985 for the purpose of construction of Thonnalloor M.D. Canal from CH 5000 to 7500 metres. The notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 12-2-1983. It was thereafter that possession was taken on 16-2-1985, in view of the alleged urgency in the acquisition in regard to which the District Collector, Ernakulam had accorded sanction under S.19 of the Central Land Acquisition Act on 12-11-1984. Petitioners allege that subsequent to taking possession on 16-2-1985, valuable improvements belonging to them in the areas, namely, yielding rubber trees, coconut trees, pepper wines, pinapple plants and the like as kayyalas and others were removed by the respondents. Petitioners were not however paid any value for the improvements or for the land taken possession under S.17(3), (3)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have been pressing for payment of these amounts which are due to them under S.17(3), (3)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and since repeated requests did not result of any payment, they have come forward with this original petition for directing the respondents to make payment of the value of the improvements as also 80 percent of the land value as enjoined in the Act.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits. It is stated that recently and in January 1987, respondents have paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,07,000/- towards the value of improvements. Further amounts have not been paid. It is stated however that the acquisition has now become unnecessary. The Superintending Engineer, Muvattupuzha has informed by his letter dated 11-1-1987, that requisition for the land between CH 5,000 and 10,540 metres is withdrawn by him due to financial constraints. Respondent No. 1 in its counter affidavit states that the requisition has been withdrawn by the Superintending Engineer not merely for financial constraints, but also because of certain technical reasons as set forth in Para.5 of the counter affidavit.