KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kayamkulam Municipality represented by its Chairman is the petitioner. Requisition was made by the Municipality to the District Collector, Alleppey, for acquiring parts of properties comprised in Survey Nos. 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 622 and 627 of Kayamkulam village for expansion and development of its public bus stand. Pursuant to that, 2nd respondent published notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on 20-2-1982 in the Gazette dated 7-9-1982. There was an erratum notification to it published on 2-11-1982. The total land sought to be acquired is approximately O.6727 hectares (about 1.7 acres). Out of that area, 80.5 cents belong to respondents 4 and 5. Even before the publication of the notification under S.3 (1) of the Act, they moved this court by filing O. P. 3503/1982 for quashing the proceedings taken in pursuance of the requisition made by the petitioner. That petition was. dismissed by this court on 28-7-1982. Respondents 4 and 5 took up the matter in Writ Appeal No. 586/1982 which was also dismissed by the decision in Chacko v. Kayamkulam Municipality ( 1982 KLT 968 ) dated 11-11-1982. Respondents 4 and 5 presented a petition before the Revenue Minister on 19-11-1982 complaining against the acquisition of 80.5 cents out of the properties notified in Ext. P1 notification. They suggested an alternate site of low lying paddy field belonging to them comprised in survey Nos. 651, 652 and 653 of Kayamkulam village having an extent of 4.68 acres. The Revenue Minister ordered to drop the proceedings taken in pursuance of Ext. P1 and directed to acquire the alternate site suggested by respondents 4 and 5. This, according to the petitioner, was on account of the pressure exerted by respondents 4 and 5 on the Minister. The petitioner was not served with any order of the Government. When asked for a copy of the order they were served with Ext. P3 letter. The petitioner contends that the order dropping the land acquisition proceedings taken in pursuance of Ext. P1 was passed without due care and attention and lacks in good faith. The petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing Ext. P3 communication and also the order passed by the Government dropping the acquisition proceedings initiated by Ext. P1 notification.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. An Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, has sworn to it. From the counter affidavit it is seen that respondents 4 and 5 submitted a petition before the Minister for Revenue on 19-11-1982 requesting to stay the acquisition proceedings, that on 26-11-1982 the proceedings were stayed, that a detailed report from the District Collector was called for, that the Revenue Divisional Officer had reported that the land owner's buildings, workshop of Nelson Motors etc. are situated on the land under acquisition, that acquisition proceedings will affect the business of the land owners and the workers in Nelson Motor workshop, that alternate land suggested by the land owners is low lying area, that it has to be reclaimed, that the suitability of that lard had to be ascertained by the requisitioning authority, that the Government found the grievances of the land owners are real and that by Letter No. 70504/B3/82/RD dated 11-5-1983 the Government dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land owned by respondents 4 and 5. It is further averred that the Government have power to drop or withdraw from land acquisition proceedings in respect of any land it has not been taken possession of. The counter affidavit proceeds on to state that:

(3.) Fifth respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. It is averred therein that O. P. 3503/1982 was filed on the ground that there cannot be an attempt to acquire the property of the petitioner therein under the Land Acquisition Act when it is included in the Town Planning Scheme under the Town Planning Act. The Division Bench while disposing of Writ Appeal No. 586/82 took the view that mere inclusion of the land in a Town Planning Scheme in its initial stage will not confer any right under the Act in the owner of the land included under the scheme and that such land can be acquired under the provisions of the Act. Notification under S.3(1) of the Act was published thereafter. Then respondents 4 and 5 petitioned before the Government for dropping the acquisition proceedings. After conducting proper enquiry they directed the District Collector, Alleppey, to drop the land acquisition proceedings. This fact was communicated to them by Ext. R5(a) Letter No. 70594/B3/82/RD dated 11-5-1983. The power of the Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings is recognised by this court in the Full Bench decision in Thaliparamba Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1973 K. L. T 940). The allegation made by the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 in the O. P. have exerted pressure on the Minister for Revenue to drop the proceedings has been stoutly denied. They accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.