IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14197 of 2009(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE OFFICER'S HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T.1325, BNI BUILDINGS, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.SANIL B. BY ADVS. MR.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE, MR.JOHN VIPIN, SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI, SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. TECHNO PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R5 BY ADV. MR.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14197/2009 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED HAVING NO.1112/97 DTD. 5/06/1997. P2: COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED HAVING NO.1113/97 DTD.5/06/1997. P3: COPY OF THE PLAN SKETCH. P4: COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION FOR THE PROPOSAL OF THE ACQUISITION. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/01/2008. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 2/03/2009. P7: COPY OF THE MEMO VIDE REF. 5733/CM/2009 DTD. 9/03/2009. P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 10/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss WPC.NO.14197/2009 T APPENDIX THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.14197 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is housing co-operative society. It purchased a parcel of land having an extent of more than 7.15 acres. On query, it is stated that the said purchase was in 1997. Later, the entire holding was plotted out and different plots were allotted to different members of the society. It is also stated that the petitioner society continues to hold those plots which have not been alloted. With the passage of time, on account of a public purpose, to wit, the purpose of the techno city, the entire parcel of land was required to be acquired. In view of the decision to go for negotiated purchase, the authorities and some of the parties have agreed on prices for some of the parcels of land even on the basis of categorisation. In so far as the petitioner's plots are concerned, there is dispute regarding the pricing of the properties and the categorisation of lands lying in Pallippuram and Andoorkonam villages. The society takes the stand that the entire holding is a single WPC.14197/09 Page numbers parcel and therefore, Pallippuram- Karamoodu road provides the road margin for the entire extent and hence, the lands in the entire holding are required to be classified as a single plot or at least they have to be treated as having road access and belongs to category IV. 2. But, the fact of the matter remains that the requisitioning authority and the acquiring authority under the Act do not concede to the petitioner's case. They dispute the petitioners assertion regarding the categorisation and also the road frontage. The provisions in the Land Acquisition Act providing for acquisition on agreement between parties regarding price etc. are matters which could be acted upon only on volition of parties on both sides. Unless that is possible, recourse to acquisition by consent or agreement is impermissible since neither the acquiring authority/requisitioning authority nor the owner of the land are foisted on the other its views as regards price etc. The need being a public purpose, the acquisition cannot be faulted. The only course open is for the petitioner to work out its remedies in terms of the Land Acquisition Act WPC.14197/09 Page numbers before the officer exercising the powers of the Collector and thereafter, before the competent reference court. By the interim order issued in this case, if any award was being issued, it was ordered to remain provisionally. 3.In the aforesaid circumstances, repelling the request of the petitioner for relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is directed that the petitioner will be given such notices as are provided for by the Land Acquisition Act to enable it or any among its members to take recourse to statutory proceedings under the Act. The respondents will also consider the request of the petitioner that in case of any proposal for acquisition of the remaining lands of the petitioner, they be given an opportunity to show to the officials the actual fact situation. Under such circumstances, it is directed that further steps in that regard will be with prior notice. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.25/6.