L SIVANANDAN Vs. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner owns and possesses 7.5 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 410/17 of Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. According to the petitioner, he is staying in the house situated in that property. He had purchased the land with the building. The Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) evolved a Scheme for laying a new road from Kadavanthara to Ponnurunni. 1st respondent - GCDA is building this road which is parallel to Sahodaran Ayyappan Road with the aid of Corporation of Cochin. It is done with the active assistance and cooperation of people residing within the area of the alignment of this road including land owners. This road is being built because of the severe traffic block in the Sahodaran Ayyappan road. According to the petitioner, he is residing in a substantial house situated in 775 cents of land and house occupies a space of about 5 cents and 2.5 cents of land can be surrendered. Petitioner" conveyed his willingness to surrender that portion of the land. But, as per the present alignment of the road, the road will go through the middle of the petitioner's property. It is also averred that the road is being built with the cooperation and goodwill of the residents of the locality and petitioner also extended his cooperation and offered 2.5 cents of land. According to the petitioner, GCDA was also agreed. But now Ext. P1 notification was published using the emergency provisions under S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. This is challenged in the original petition.

(2.) Main grounds urged by the petitioner is that there is no emergency to invoke S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. In Ext. P1 it is stated that the need is for the completion of the Ponnurunni-Kadavan-thara road and owners of the land mentioned in Ext. P1 refused to give possession of the land and cooperate with the GCDA to form the road. It was also argued that the road is proposed to be constructed by voluntary cooperation of the residents of the locality and voluntary surrender of land. There was no intention at all to resort to compulsory acquisition. It is also stated that there are deviations made to save houses of one Kumar which is named as 'Temple view' and of one Bhaskara Menon. A sketch was also produced to show that the proposed road is not straight and there are deviations. An immediate ouster from the house will cause difficulties to the petitioner and his family. When the case came up for admission, an interim direction was given in C.M.P. No. 1962 of 1997 to the effect that the respondents shall not demolish the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, counter affidavit and reply affidavit were also filed.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the GCDA, it has been stated that the 15 metre vide Ponnurunni-Kadavanthara road is a parallel road to Sahodaran Ayyappan road and it is being constructed with the active cooperation of the people including owners of the land and people who reside in the land falling within the area of alignment of this road. It was further stated that the road is envisaged as an important city road under the Elamkulam East Detailed Town Planning Scheme which was approved by G.O. (Ms) No. 53/88/LAD, dated 30-3-1988. It is provided in the Scheme that the implementation of the scheme must be with the cooperation of the people as far as possible. According to the GCDA, except the petitioner and the petitioners in O.P. No. 887 of 1997, all others are fully cooperating with the construction of the road. Other land owners have surrendered the land free of cost. GCDA has also tried to provide alternate sites having the same value of land to the land owners. According to the GCDA, even the petitioner himself had agreed to surrender the said house to the GCDA for widening the road. But, later, the petitioner withdrew the above promise. GCDA also specifically refused the allegation that earlier the GCDA agreed to accept 2.5 cents of land only from the petitioner. The road has already been formed and all works except metalling and tarring are over except in the land of the petitioner and one Shri Reghu and his wife who filed O.P. No. 887/97 which was also disposed of. Now, the only obstruction is the petitioner's house. At the time when the Notification was issued the road was already formed except the metalling and tarring work. From east as well as from west, the road touched the land of the petitioner and the moment the petitioner's building is removed passage for the road will be clear. Therefore, it is averred that for clearance of the Ponnurunni - Kadavanthara road, what is required is only the acquisition of the petitioner's property. According to the GCDA, petitioner and one Reghu and his wife alone refused to surrender the property as originally agreed. When Ext. P1 notification was issued under S.17(4) work till the petitioner's property was over. Work of the road after the petitioner's property is also over except metalling and tarring. Therefore, for completing the road, urgent action was necessary and, therefore, notification was published under S.17(4) of the Act using emergency provisions. It is also submitted that widening of the Sahodaran Ayyappan road is also in progress. To complete that widening process also, the only course for deviating the traffic is to use the present parallel road which is being constructed. So, emergency action was necessary and, therefore, notification under S.17(4) was published. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that if any deviation is taken as prayed for, it will cause a sharp curve and the land where the house is situated is essential to link the road from east to west. Any deviation will also result in unnecessary acquisition of properties of other people in that area. It is also stated that the GCDA does not possess any land in the Elamkulam East Detailed Town Planning Scheme area. The allegation to the effect that the GCDA officers were convinced about the necessity for deviation was also denied.