ABDUL LATHEEF P. K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings proposing to acquire his property covered by Exts. P1 and P2 for the construction of an approach road and the widening of the same in connection with the construction of a bridge on Parakkadavu in Kozhikode Division of the State Public Works Department (Roads and Bridges). Ext. P3 is the composite notification under S.4(1) and 17(4). It is stated in Ext. P3 that in view of the urgency of the need enquiry under S.5A has been ordered to be dispensed with. Pursuant to Ext. P3 notice under R.9 of the Land Acquisition Rules showing the details of the properties proposed to be acquired has also been issued and Ext. P4 is copy of the said notice. Item No. 4 in Ext. P4 is property of the petitioner. On receiving Ext. P4 the petitioner submitted Ext. P5 representation highlighting the hardship he will have to suffer in case the acquisition of his property is insisted upon. It is stated in Ext. P5 that if the petitioner's property is acquired his residential building will come to be on the very edge of the approach road, which will render a peaceful life in the building is impossible. The petitioner submits that the proposal is to acquire his property to a width of 7 metres from the edge of the road to the property on the opposite side of the road belonging to another person is being acquired only to the extent of 2 metres. The present proposal is in deviation from the original plan which was to acquire equally from the petitioner's property and also from the property on the opposite side. Petitioner submits that if the original plan is implemented without deviation the prejudice will not be caused to anybody. Referring to S.62 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and sub-section 2 of S.5 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 the petitioner contends that the present proceedings initiated under Central Land Acquisition Act are without jurisdiction and hence void. Raising various grounds the petitioner prays in this writ petition for the following reliefs.

(2.) ON considering this writ petition for admission this Court on 09/01/2008 issued notice to R2 and R3, Special Tahsildar L.A. and the Chief Engineer (Roads and Bridges) and directed the Government Pleader to took notice on behalf of the first respondent State of Kerala to make available the land acquisition file and also stayed dispossession of the petitioner from his properties for two weeks. The interim order restraining dispossession on being extended from time to time is in currency. The second respondent L.A. Officer has filed a detailed statement. It is contended therein that the acquisition proceedings was initiated on the basis of a valid requisition received from the Executive Engineer (Bridges and Roads) for the construction of Parakadavu Bridge and the approach road. The Executive Engineer requested for invocation of the urgency clause since the public and the representatives of the public were constantly pressing for early realisation of the project which will provide considerable convenience to the public for reaching the institutions such as Calicut Medical College, Indian Institute of Management and N.I.T etc. It is in view of the urgency of the work that the Land Revenue Commissioner issued order No. LR(C4) 15795/07 dated 19/04/2007 in exercise of powers under sub-section (4) of S.17 and exempted S.5A enquiry. Notification under S.34(1) has been made and published in the Gazette as well as in Mathrubhumi daily and Deshabhimani daily which was served on all known interested parties and published in the Village Offices concerned and on the site. Many of the owners on realising the urgency of the need surrendered their lands in advance and those lands have already been handed over to the requisitioning authority. The acquisition is being challenged by the present petitioner and by one Basheer Karippal Thazhem, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 7018 of 2008. The statement repudiates the grounds taken by the petitioner that the Central Acquisition Act does not have any application in Kerala. It is pointed out that all proceedings for land acquisition presently come under the purview of the Central Land Acquisition Act and S.55(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act empowers the State Government to make rules. It is claimed in the statement that the notification under S.4(1), under R.3(c) and notice under R.4(b) have all been made and published and served in accordance with law and hence valid. It is claimed that the acquisition is to achieve an eminently genuine public purpose which is expected to give relief to the people inhabiting the area who will be able to access to important institutions like Medical College, I.I.M., N.I.T. etc. quickly.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit reiterating his contentions and denying the contentions raised by the land acquisition officer and the requisitioning authority. It is highlighted that there has been no application of mind at all by the Government regarding the urgency of the need and the justification in dispensing with enquiry under S.5A. Judgments of the Supreme Court governing the point have been ignored by the concerned. The reply affidavit also reiterates the contention that the original plan has been deviated by and large and it is alleged that is only to protect the interest of certain persons who would have been affected if acquisition has been made as per the original plan that the deviation has now been made.