IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 25262 of 2007(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. VIMALA, AGED 68 YEARS, D/O LATE VILASINI B.MENON, 'ABHILASH', RAPPAL, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JAYA R.MENON, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O LATE VILASINI B.MENON, 'AAYILYAM', GMS LANE, NEAR KARTHIYANI TEMPLE, AIYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 3. INDIA V.NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O LATE VILASINI B.MENON, NARAYANEEYAM, PUSHPA VIHAR HOUSING COLONY, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. 4. SARASA BALAGOPAL, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O LATE VILASINI B.MENON, ANGGHA, 6TH LANE, KOLATHERIL ROAD, PETTA, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 5. RENUKA NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O LATE VILASINI B.MENON, HAREKRISHNA POTTAN STREET, CHERAI ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM. 6. RAGINI P.KARTHA, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O LATE VILASINI B.MENON, AMBATTU HOUSE, KAITHRI ROAD, KOTTAPURAM VIA ALANGAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 7. JAYASANKAR, AGED 44 YEARS, ANAGHA, 6TH LANE, KOLATHERIL ROAD, PETTA, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 8. MINI ACHUKUTTAN, AGED 49 YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE ACHUKUTTAN, 'SUGHOSHA', AMALA BHAVAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20, ERNAKULAM. 9. SARANYA, AGED 16 YEARS(MINOR), D/O LATE ACHUKUTTAN, 'SUGHOSHA', AMALA BHAVAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 20, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN MINI ACHUKUTTAN. BY ADV. SRI.R.PREMCHAND SMT.A.A.DILSHAH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION) KOCHI CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS & BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, SC, RBDCK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO. 25262 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRILIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.B- 1406/2 DATED 3.4.2003. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 12.3.2007. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 DATED 20.3.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------- K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) NO.25262 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Petitioners are owners 25.25 cents of land comprised in Sy. No.476/1 of Ernakulam Village. An extent of 13.5 cents from the above extent was sought to be acquired for the construction of the Railway over bridge at Pulleppady. Though the said plot was measured out and demarcated by the authorities, no further steps were taken and no award is passed. It is averred that no notice is issued to the petitioners so far. It is further averred that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 7.4.2003 invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. Section 5A enquiry was dispensed with. But till date the petitioners were not paid 80% of the compensation. Land acquired was not taken possession by the respondents and no award is passed even after the lapse of 4 years. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings. W.P(C) NO.25262 OF 2007 -: 2 :- 2. District Collector, Ernakulam, has filed a counter affidavit admitting that Smt.Vilasini B.Menon has title over 25.250 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.476/1 of Ernakulam Village. The Managing Director, Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd. has submitted a requisition in Form No.2 of Kerala Land Acquisition Rules for acquisition of an extent of 3.5925 hectares of land comprised in various survey numbers of Ernakulam and Elamkulam Villages in Kanayannur Taluk for the purpose of construction of Railway over bridge at Pulleppady. It is further contended that combined notification under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act was issued on 21.4.2003 for acquisition of 0.0560 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.476/1 of Ernakulam Village owned by Smt. Vilasini B.Menon. It is contended stated that draft declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in the Kerala Gazette on 21.7.2003. A detailed valuation statement was prepared by the second respondent which was approved by the first respondent. It is contended that the third respondent has to provide sufficient funds. It is also contended that the third respondent has not provided W.P(C) NO.25262 OF 2007 -: 3 :- sufficient funds and hence the Land Acquisition Officer is not in a position to pass award in the case. It is further contended that possession of land was not taken by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended that notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was issued and detailed valuation statement and draft award prepared by the second respondent were approved by the first respondent on 14.1.2003. It is reiterated that the second respondent was not able to pass the award since the third respondent-requisitioning authority has not made available the necessary funds. It is contended that since requisition is pending, respondents 1 and 2 cannot withdraw from the land acquisition proceedings and only the third respondent can make it clear whether the acquisition proceedings are to be continued and the property of the petitioners is needed or not. It is contended that on receipt of the representation from the petitioners, the matter was brought to the notice of the third respondent, but still the third respondent has not provided funds and hence the Land Acquisition Officer is unable to pass award in this case. It is contended that the delay has occurred due to non-availability W.P(C) NO.25262 OF 2007 -: 4 :- of funds. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent has no liability to make available funds. It is the duty of the Corporation to make available sufficient funds. The Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Kochi, in the connected case, had taken a stand that it is the liability of the requisitioning authority to provide necessary funds. 4. In this case Section 4(1) notification was published as early as on 7.4.2003. Though emergency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked, 80% of the compensation was not awarded to the petitioners. The declaration was made on 21.7.2003. In view of the stand taken by respondents 3 and 4, it is clear that there is no chance of making available sufficient funds in the near future. Respondents 1 and 2 had stated that they will not be in a position to pass award unless and until necessary funds are provided to them. The statutory period fixed for passing award was over. The principles laid down in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2517) and Fr. W.P(C) NO.25262 OF 2007 -: 5 :- Paul Chakiath v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 182) have no application to the facts of this case. Since no award is passed within the time fixed by law, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. So the Writ Petition is to be allowed without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to acquire the land in question in future in case a public purpose arises. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. It is declared that the entire land acquisition proceedings so far as the property of the petitioners comprised in Sy. No.476/1 of Ernakulam Village, which is sought to be acquired for the purpose of the Railway over bridge at Pulleppady, have lapsed. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not be a bar for the respondents to acquire the land in question in case a public purpose arises in future. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- TH MARCH, 2008