SAROJA MONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. C. John, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N. Sankara menon for petitioners, Mr. T. M. Yousuff, Addl. Advocate General and Smt. Molly jacob, Government Pleader for the State and Mr. Babu Varghese, Standing Counsel for Water Authority.

(2.) THE Original Petitions were filed by the petitioners challe vii) Mathew Varghese v. Cochin International Airport. (1998 (2) KLT 123) ii) Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. (1996 (2) SCC 549) in) Ramnilal N. Bhutia v. State of Maharashtra (1997) I SCC 134 ). 17. Mr. Babu Varghese, Standing Counsel for the Kerala water Authority, after inviting our attention to the relevant passages in the counter affidavit and the annexure has also cited the following decisions: i) Khadim Hussuin v. State of U. P. & Ors. (1976 (1)SCC 483) ii) Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KLT 71) iii.) Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 580) iv) Lt. K. Padmadas v. State of Kerala (1lr 1991 (3) Ker. 414) v) S. H. Rangappa v. Slate of Karnataka (JT 1998 (6) SC 82 = (1998) 5 SCC 509 ). He also highlighted the importance of the scheme and the steps already taken by the Kerala Water Authority in the implementation of the scheme for the common good and in public interest. 18. According to the learned Government Pleader the original Petitions have been filed without any bonafides and the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Kerala Water Authority is the agency of the Government of Kerala who have been entrusted with the function of providing drinking water to the citizens of Kerala and undertaking proper drainage schemes in various areas in Kerala. THE scheme in question is one of the major projects being operated by the said authority. She would submit that the augmentation of the Kochi Water Supply Scheme was conceived by the Kerala Water authority to meet the acute scarcity of drinking water to the people in the kochi area mainly in the City of Kochi, five surrounding Municipalities and 25 panchayats suburb and to Kochi city. With this view the Kerala Water Authority prepared scheme under the Kerala Urban Development Project. THE records placed before us show that the project report was prepared with the assistance of Tata consulting Engineers and since the major project could not be taken up by the kerala Water Authority the adhoc augmentation project has been taken up under the loan assistance scheme of HUDCO. THE adhoc augmentation project is only a part of the major Kerala Urban Development Project which includes several components as mentioned in para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Kerala. It is seen from the records that the Government have accorded administrative and technical sanction as per G. O. Rt. No. 2560/95/lad dated 5. 5. 95 and the Government, after considering the importance of the matter and also the necessity of completing the project on an emergency basis to solve the scarcity of water in Ernakulam Western Kochi and Vypin Island issued certificate No. 3754/4/fi/d6/lad dated 4. 5. 96 requiring to acquire the land by invoking urgency clause. In the light of the above certificate issued by the government, the Board of Revenue vide proceedings No. LR (c)6-14762/96/k. Dis. dated 22. 7. 96 accorded sanction to invoke the urgency clause under S. 17 of the act in respect of the land covered by the circular dated 4. 5. 1996. As a matter of fact the entire land acquisition proceedings was initiated based on the requisition from the Water Authority received at the Collectorate on 15. 11. 95. THE delay in giving administrative sanction have also been explained in the counter affidavit. Even for the issuance of S. 4 (1) notification the land had to be surveyed and the exact details of the property required to be acquired had to be determined. As could be seen from the various proceedings the land owners including the petitioners in various Original Petitions have also obstructed the survey process. Based on the sanction accorded by the Board of Revenue for invoking the urgency clause on 22. 7. 1996 the respondent published Ext. P2 notification dated 25. 7. 96 under S. 4 (1) read with S. 17 (4) of the Act in respect of Aluva east and West, Thrikkakara North and Vazhakkala Village in the Kerala Gazette on 1. 8. 1996. Before that it was published in the Madhyamam daily dated 29. 7. 96 and Mathrubhoomi daily dated 30. 7. 96. THE public notice under R. 7 (2) in respect of Aluva East Village was published in the locality on 27. 9. 1996 and in respect of Aluva West Village was published in Aluva Municipal area on 27. 9. 96 and choornikkara Panchayat area on 28. 9. 96. THE said notice under S. 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 19. 8. 96 and in the Mathrubhomi daily on 20. 8. 96 and Madhyamam daily on 19. 8. 96 and public notice under R. 7 (2) was published in the locality on 30. 11. 96. For the purpose of publishing S. 6 declaration under the Act detailed survey has to be conducted. THE respondents had to approach the police authorities for removal of obstruction and the declaration in respect of Aluva East and West Villages was approved by the Board of Revenue in its proceedings dated 26. 9. 1997 and it was published in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 15. 10. 1997, Madhyamam daily on 16. 1 ( ). 1997 and the Kerala Gazette Extra ordinary No. 1394 dated 9. 10. 1997 and in the locality on 13. 10. 97. THE public notice under R. 7 (2) in respect of Thrikkakara North Village was published in the locality on 5. 10. 1996 and the Board of Revenue approved its declaration as per proceedings dated 25. 8. 97 and it was published in the Gazette No. 1263 dated 12. 9. 1997 in the Mathrubhoomi daily dated 12. 9. 1997, Madhyamam daily on 9. 9. 1997 and in the locality on 12. 9. 1997. Likewise the notice under R. 7 (2) in respect of Vazhakkala Village was published in the locality on 27. 9. 1996, declaration under S. 6 of the Act in respect of this village was approved by the board of Revenue in proceedings dated 18. 8. 1997 audit was published in the gazette No. 1151 dated 20. 8. 97, in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 23. 9. 1997, madhyamam daily on 21. 9. 1997 in the locality on 12. 9. 1997. THE declaration under S. 6 in respect of Edapally South Village was approved by the Board of revenue vide proceedings dated 26. 11. 97 and was published in the Gazette No. 1646 dated 26. 11. 97, Mathrubhoomi daily dated 29. 11. 97, Madhyamam daily on 29. 11. 97 and in the locality on 30. 11. 97. 19. A close scrutiny of the above dates of publications could clearly go to show that there is no substance in the allegation of the petitioners that the land acquisition notification in Exts. P2 and P2 (a) stands lapsed by efflux of time as provided in second proviso to S. 6 of the Act. As a matter of fact in the affidavit filed on 5. 11. 1997 and 12. 12. 1997 in W. A. 553/97 the Special Tahsildar (LA), General, Ernakulam have clearly stated about the publication of 4 (1) notification in respect of Edappally South Village was 30. 11. 96 and in the written statement filed as per Ext. P4, the date shown as