IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 14138 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.GOPALAN NAIR, CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA SERVICES COMPANY LTD., T.C.26/300, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOSEPH MATHEW, CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, MAYOORAM, BETHOVEN GARDEN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MUTHOOT PLAZA HOTELS PVT.LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE MUTHOOT PLAZA HOTELS PVT.LTD., PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), O/O.THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDL.LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, TRIDA FOR R3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R5 SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR, SC, IA & AD FOR R6 SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA ROAD FUND BOA FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J ----------------------------------------- Dated 21st October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land approximately 15 cents in extent, situated by the side of Punnen Road, Thiruvananthapuram and lying behind the lands where the office of the Accountant General is situated. For the purpose of widening the M.G.Road, about 42 cents of land forming part of the Accountant General's office complex was acquired by the State Government. That led to a situation where vehicles coming to the Accountant General's office ceased to have easy and convenient access. The Accountant General therefore requested the State Government to provide an alternate access for vehicles. Ext.P5 notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was thereupon issued by the Special Tahsildar, the seventh respondent herein. By the said notification, 13.20 cents of land comprising of 4 W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 2 : cents of land belonging to the petitioner and 9 cents of land belonging to the another person is sought to be acquired. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 notification and Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to refrain from proceeding pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. The petitioner contends that if at all an alternate access to the Accountant General's office has to be provided, the lands lying adjacent to his lands including the lands belonging to the NABARD and a hotelier can be acquired. He contends that the proposed acquisition is malafide and that the alignment for the proposed road has been prepared in such a manner that the lands belonging to the hotelier are excluded from acquisition. 2. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits. They contend that the acquisition was necessitated on account the acquisition of a large extent of W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 3 : land forming part of the Accountant General's office complex for widening the M.G.Road. It is submitted that the alignment of the proposed road from Punnen Road to the Accountant General's office was fixed after detailed survey and inspection, that the proposed alignment causes least inconvenience to land owners, that it does not result in demolition of large number of buildings, that only a portion of the petitioner's building and a portion of the Kalyanamandapam lying behind it will have to be demolished, that it is the least expensive and that the owner of the other parcel of land being acquired has no objection to the acquisition. The respondents also deny the allegation that the acquisition is malafide. 3. I heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.M.Rajagopalan Nair, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Trivandrum Development Authority, W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 4 : Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Road Fund Board and Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. The petitioner challenges the acquisition essentially on the ground that it is malafide and that it is not for a public purpose. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that about 42 cents of land forming part of the Accountant General's office complex was acquired for widening the M.G.Road. The petitioner contends that if at all another access has to be provided to the Accountant General's office complex, such access can be provided from Contonment Road and also from M.G.Road and therefore it is not necessary to acquire his lands to provide access to the Accountant General's office complex. In the alternative he contends that if at all another access has to be provided, such access can be provided by acquiring other lands including the land belonging to a hotelier, the fifth respondent herein. He W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 5 : contends that the alignment of the proposed road has been fixed in such a manner that the land belonging to the hotelier is excluded from acquisition. 4. It is not in dispute that after 42 cents of land was acquired from the lands forming part of the Accountant General's office complex for widening the M.G.Road, there is no convenient access for vehicles coming to the Accountant General's office. In such circumstances, if the authorities concerned thought it fit that another access should be provided to the Accountant General's office, it cannot be said that it is not for a public purpose. I therefore overrule the petitioner's contention that there is no public purpose underlying the proposed acquisition. 5. I shall now deal with the petitioner's contention that the acquisition is malafide. He contends that the alignment of the proposed road has been fixed in such a manner that the lands belonging to the hotelier are excluded from acquisition. A plea of malafides cannot be accepted W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 6 : unless the person alleging malafides places on record cogent and concrete materials which inspire confidence in this Court. Apart from merely alleging that the proposal to acquire his land is malafide and that his land is being acquired with a view to exclude the lands belonging to the hotelier, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material in support of the said plea. Ext.P3 sketch produced by the petitioner shows that Punnen road is wider at the place where it abuts his lands and also the lands where Hotel Muthoot Plaza, situated to the south of the petitioner's land is put up. Behind the petitioner's land there is a Kalyanamandapam. If any portion of the land in which Hotel Muthoot Plaza is situated is acquired, it will result in demolition of the hotel building, thereby resulting in payment of a higher amount as compensation. The petitioner has no case that the land lying to the south of his land should be acquired. Besides the 4 cents of land belonging to the petitioner, 9 cents of land is being acquired W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 7 : from the owner of the land where the Kalyanamandapam is situated. The owner of the said parcel of land does not object to the acquisition. In fact the official respondents state that he has surrendered his lands and that the petitioner alone is objecting to the acquisition. As the result of the acquisition only a portion of the petitioner's building will have to be demolished. According to the respondents it is also the least expensive. The sketch produced by the petitioner also discloses that the proposed road starts from the widest portion of Punnen Road and leads to the south western corner of the Accountant General's office complex. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the proposed acquisition of the petitioner's land is malafide. 6. The petitioner has a further contention that alternate access can be had to the Accountant General's office complex from Cantonment Road, which lies on the northern side of the said office complex. The learned counsel for the official respondents submit that Cantonment W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 8 : Road which lies to the south of the Administrative Secretariat is a busy road which is frequently blocked on account of dharnas in front of the administrative secretariat and also processions taken out by various organisations. In my opinion this is a the relevant fact which the official respondents are entitled to take into the account while taking a decision in the matter of providing an alternate access to the Accountant General's office complex. The acquisitioning authority is the best judge of the situation and it is not for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to sit in appeal over the said decision, especially in the absence of any cogent material to establish the petitioner's contention that the proposal to acquire his land is malafide. The sketch produced by the petitioner would show that the present proposal would facilitate easy movement of vehicles to and from the Accountant General's office complex. W.P.(C)No.14138 of 2009-J : 9 : For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge ab