K RAVEENDRANATHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1997 dismissing the writ petition in limine. The appellant filed O.P. 5314/97 to quash Ext. P6 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to drop Ext. PI acquisition proceedings in respect of 5.65 ares of the property comprised in survey No. 211/18 of Paravoor Taluk, Kollam District. Ext. P6 is the proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Trivandrum dated 15-2-1997 passed by the member of the Board overruling the objection and approving the declaration for proceeding further in the matter. The appellant temple is represented by its secretary. According to him it is a temple managed by the committee elected by the local public and the temple is being worshipped by the public for more than 100 years. The temple is situated in survey No. 211/14. The other item in survey No. 211/18 lying little away from the temple was included in the notification issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6-2-1996 for acquiring the land for Munsiff - Magistrate Court, Paravur. Copy of the notification is produced as Annexure I and the translation as Annexure I(a). Annexure I is the 4(1) notification issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) - II, Kollam requiring various survey numbers including survey No. 211/18 for a public purpose viz., for the construction of Munsiff - Magistrate Court and office headquarters at Paravoor. The appellant produced Ext. PI Partition deed and also some documents in proof of paying land tax etc. A rough sketch showing the temple property and the properties sought to be acquired is produced and marked as Annexure IV. The appellant filed objections to the acquisition proceedings. Annexure V is the objection in Malayalam and Annexure V(a) is its English translation. In the objection the appellant has stated that the temple in question is an ancient temple and that the same should be exempted from the proceedings initiated for acquiring the said property. According to the appellant there are many sites available for the construction of the Court at Paravoor other than the temple property and that the land is acquired then the temple will be left with an extent of only 6.8 cents and that would create a lot of inconvenience to the devotees of the temple from doing their rituals. The appellant's objection was neither considered by the District Collector nor by the Board of Revenue, The Special Tahsildar, Kollam who heard the objection on 25-11-1996 has submitted his proposals to the Government for acquisition of the lands in question. The Board of Revenue passed an order under Ext. P6 dated 15-2-1997 approving the proposal for the construction of the Munsiff's Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition in limine on 24-3-1997, upholding the impugned proceedings. Aggrieved by the order the appellant has preferred the above writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised by the appellant in his Original Petition and argued on the same line. According to the learned counsel none of the objections raised by the appellant was considered by any of the authorities below and the approach made by all the authorities is perverse and therefore he contended that the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the proposed acquisition of the temple property would deprive the temple of the practise of conducting daily pooja, monthly and annual festivals in accordance with the accepted norms and traditions in terms of the Vedas and Upanishads and that the District Collector did not appreciate the difficulties and inconvenience that may be caused to the temple on account of the acquisition. Learned counsel also further contended that the impugned proceedings could interfere with the religious rites of the public to worship in the temple.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal the President of the Paravoor Bar Association filed CMP. 5726/97 to implead the Paravoor Bar Association as the fifth respondent in the Writ Appeal. According to them the property was sought to be acquired for the public purpose and the property which is sought to be acquired is the most convenient and suitable site for the purpose of housing the Court complex, and that the Bar Association are very much interested in the acquisition proceedings and to have the Court complex established at the earliest. The delay in completion of the proceedings will naturally result in the delay of establishment of the Court's own building and the members of the Bar Association and the public are much affected parties by such delay. The said C.M.P. was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13-1-1998.

(3.) The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Appeal. It is contended that the grievances expressed by the appellant are absolutely incorrect and unfounded and that the acquisition proceedings was started as per the requisition dated 8-12-1994 from the District Judge, Kollam and that after the issuance of S.4(1) notification in the local newspapers as well as in the gazette. Notices under R.7(1) of the Land Acquisition Rules were served on all interested parties involved in the acquisition for filing objections and in response to the notice the appellant and another person filed objection to the same, and that the authorities have considered the objection in depth and overruled the same. A report was forwarded through the second respondent to the third respondent and a draft declaration was also forwarded to the Board of Revenue for approval and the Board again considered all the aspects of the case in view of the objections raised against the land acquisition and passed a detailed order under Ext. P6 overruling the objections of the petitioner. Thus it is contended that the objection raised were without merit and since the acquisition is for public purpose the objections were overruled. The appellant filed a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent and also filed another reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent reiterating the same contentions.