SANTHA SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The specific case of the petitioner is that some of the respondents concerned more particularly the 4 th respondent had unlawfully entered into the property of a neighbour of the petitioners and with the use of JCB had removed the earth and excavation work from the construction of a retaining wall in the property of the neighbour of the petitioners and even plantains and cultivations have been destroyed and it has been informed that the said action was done by the 4th respondent for the purpose of widening of a road unlawfully and without issuance of any notification under any law regulating the subject of compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioners apprehend that the some of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent may repeat the same unlawful activity in relation to their properties as well and that under the guise of widening of road, the 4th respondent and his men may forcibly and unlawfully take over and acquire the properties of the petitioners for widening of said road. The petitioners would state that they are fully willing to co-operate with the process of widening of road, and if their lands are to be acquired for that purpose, they are not willing to give the land on free surrender basis and that their properties can be acquired by the respondents only by setting in motion due proceedings under valid laws like The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking appropriate prayers.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Taking note of the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the cases, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case any or all of the respondents intend to acquire or take over the properties of the petitioners within their title and possession, then they can do so only after issuance of a valid notification under a valid law for regulating the subject of compulsory acquisition of land, for acquiring the properties of the petitioners for any purposes including that for widening of the road. Taking note of the specific averments of the petitioners that the property of their neighbour has been unlawfully taken over by the 4 th respondent for the abovesaid purpose of widening of road, it is also ordered as follows. The 2nd respondent District Collector will ensure that the aforesaid directions issued by this Court is complied with by all the respondent officials concerned within his District, more particularly respondents 3 & 4, in letter and spirit. This Court would so say because quite a few cases have come to the notice of this Court, where directions of similar nature have been issued are seen to have been breached by some of the authorities concerned. If there is any non compliance of the directions issued in this regard, the matter will be viewed very seriously and it will be at the risk of the officers who venture to take such steps.