IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35312 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AMY P.A., AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.P.V.MUHAMMEDALI, POTHEN VEEDU, WEST VELIYATHUNAD P.O., KARUMALOOR PANCHAYATH, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.K.J.ALPHONS, MR.AKBAR.K.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL TRICHUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, TRICHUR. 3. EDAVILANGU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KARA P.O. KODUNGALLUR. 4. P.V.KOCHUMOIDU, PRESIDENT, EDAVILANGU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYAT OFFICE KARA P.O. KODUNGALLUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.V. MANOJKUMAR R3 BY ADV.MR.V.A.MUHAMMED R4 BY ADV.MR.GEORGE SEBASTIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35312/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT NO.1976 OF 1957 DTD. 3/09/1957. P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 15/07/2008 IN FORM NO.3(C) INVOKING URGENCY CLAUSE. P3: COPY OF THE EARLIER NOTIFICATION DTD. 21/2/2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND EXHIBITED AT THE VILLAGE OFFICE OF EDAVILANGU. P4: COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN WPC.NO. 24148 OF 2008 TO HIS APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.27426 OF 2008. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO. 27426 OF 2008. P7: COPY OF THE CANCELLATION NOTIFICATION DTD. 14/11/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE “DESHABHIMANI” DAILY DTD. 18/11/2008. P8: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 18/112008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 09/08/07. R1(B): COPY OF THE GUIDELINES. R1(C): COPY OF THE LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DTD. 17/11/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ====================================== W.P.(C).No.35312 of 2008 - D =============================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of 1 acre 20 cents of land in survey No.444/4 of Edavilangu Village. The Land Acquisition Officer, Thrissur issued Ext.P2 notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire a portion of that land. Earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer has issued Ext.P3 notification under Section 4(1), which did not cover the petitioner's property. In supercession of Ext.P3, Ext.P2 was issued. Soon thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer cancelled Ext.P2 by Ext.P7 and issued Ext.P8 fresh notification. As per the said notification also, it is proposed to acquire a portion of land belonging to the petitioner which was proposed to be acquired under Ext.P2. Challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition is filed. He prays for acquiring the land covered by Ext.P3. 2. According to the petitioner, the land proposed to be acquired under Ext.P3 is more suitable. It was within 400 meters of the sea shore. So, fishermen who are the beneficiaries of the W.P.(C).No.35312 of 2008 - D 2 scheme preferred that land. The present proposed land is at a distance of about 1km. from the sea shore. The present notification was issued only to save the property belonging to a relative of the president of the Edavilangu Grama Panchayath. So, the said notification is vitiated by malafides. Since the area was not hit by Tsunami and there are no victims to be rehabilitated, the purpose for which the land acquired is not a public purpose and therefore, the petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to them, the land covered by Ext.P3 was found to be unsuitable and therefore, cancelling the earlier notification the present notification was issued. The allegation that the change in the lands to be acquired was made at the instance of the Panchayath President, is denied by them. They have also produced Ext.R1(a) to (c) along with the additional counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. The respondents rely on Ext.R1(a) wherein it is stated that Government of Kerala have decided to implement a W.P.(C).No.35312 of 2008 - D 3 comprehensive housing programme to rehabilitate and resettle the coastal households living in vulnerable areas and that are perpetually under risk and threat on account of potential disasters. To implement the said scheme, the acquisition is being made, it is submitted. 4. We heard the counsel on both sides. 5. We have no doubt in our mind that the acquisition for the purpose of implementing the scheme mentioned in Ext.R1(a) Government Order is definitely a public purpose. The allegations of malafide have been denied by the respondents. The allegations relating to malafide are easily made and it is difficult to establish them. The court cannot act upon such bald allegations made by interested persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to appoint a commission to examine the properties covered by Exts.P3 and P8 and file a report. If such an examination is made, learned counsel submitted that it will be found that lands covered by Ext.P3 will be more suitable. Learned Government Pleader submitted that land was identified after inspection and examination at different levels. He pointed out that the decision regarding choice of land was taken W.P.(C).No.35312 of 2008 - D 4 unanimously by the Panchayath. The land covered by Ext.P3 was found unsuitable for rehabilitation. So, the decision was taken to go for the land covered under Ext.P8. 6. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not justified in interfering with the choice of land. The case of the petitioner is that the property covered under Ext.P3 is more suitable and that covered by Ext.P8 is unsuitable. But, the judgment of the Government in this matter should normally prevail. We are not justified in taking a different view in the matter. No compelling materials are before us to take a different view to appoint a commission to report on the matter. We find none of the grounds raised in the writ petition is sufficient to interfere with the acquisition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. bkn/-