IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31955 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- INAYATHKHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.C.M.ABDURAHIMAN KHAN, JAFERKHAN HOUSE, JAFERKHAN COLONY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN, MR.NIRMAL. S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL BODIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(LA), CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. 3. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA, R3 BY MR.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON 03/08/2009, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31955 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.An item of land was acquired for the purpose of establishing a modern slaughter house. The requisitioning authority is the Kozhikode Corporation. An award was passed on 14.5.2007. Thereafter, notice was issued requiring the occupants to vacate. The petitioner is a co-owner of that parcel of land. Objections are shown to have cropped up from the residents of the locality to the starting of the slaughter house. I would immediately refer to the sketch accompanying Ext.P5, the statement filed by the Special Tahsildar in an earlier writ petition that led to Ext.P7 judgment. That sketch, about which the petitioner has no dispute, shows that the plot marked 'E' therein is the acquired land and the plot marked 'A' carries an existing slaughter house, which is stated to be non-functional and outdated. The purpose of acquisition is to establish a modern slaughter house. WPC.31955/08 Page numbers 2.When this Court noticed, during the consideration of the petitioners' earlier writ petition that led to Ext.P7 judgment, that an award has been passed, the judgment in G.C.D.A. v. Victoria Xavier [2001 (1) KLT 830] was relied on and this Court refused to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings, though it was noted that the statement of the respondents included the averment that the local mob were in an agitated mood as against acquisition even when an attempt was made to prepare the plan. This Court, while issuing Ext.P7, required the Corporation and the Secretary to Government to consider any representation that may be filed by the petitioner since it was felt that it would be appropriate for them to consider such representations in the light of the persistent agitation stated to be made by the local people. The Council of the Corporation and the Government were required to pass appropriate orders with due notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned Exts.P10 and P11 have been issued respectively by the Corporation and the Government. These decisions are under challenge. WPC.31955/08 Page numbers 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P7 judgment and other materials on record, as also the ground realities as discernible from the sketch referred to above, argued that the petitioner was not against the acquisition of land for the need of setting up a slaughter house and his objection was only regarding the identity of the property. According to the petitioner, plot 'B' in Ext.P5 was the one conducive for acquisition. 4.The petitioner's plea is contradicted by the contents of the impugned order. Though the local people were shown to be in an agitated mood, the Corporation found no objections of any person to the acquisition in question, on record. The proximity of an Anganavadi is also, in my view, of no consequence because the Anganavadi is nearer to that slaughter house which had been existing, rather than the land being acquired, i.e., plot 'E' in the sketch. Contrasting the figures available in the sketch, plot 'E' suggested by the petitioner is lesser in WPC.31955/08 Page numbers extent than the acquired land, the acquisition of which has become final by the passing of the award. The Corporation also points out that the land sought to be acquired abuts a road, which lies along side plot 'E', for the formation of which, a part of the land of the petitioner was also acquired. It has to be noted that the alternate site suggested, plot 'F', will not have a direct road frontage from the Pallikandy-Kothi approach road, to which the acquired land abuts. Ext.P10 elaborately states reasons for the rejection of the belated application of the petitioner for changing the site of acquisition. The petitioner was also heard by the Council through the Mayor, before the decision evidenced by Ext.P10 is issued. This leads the challenge to be confined to the plea that Ext.P11 has been issued by the Government without giving the petitioner a pre-decisional opportunity of hearing, notwithstanding the direction in that regard in Ext.P7 judgment. WPC.31955/08 Page numbers 5. Even when Ext.P7 judgment was issued, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the acquisition. May be that such a view was taken in the light of the law that it would be inadvisable or even impermissible to interfere when awards have been passed and the matter finalised. The opportunity given to the petitioner to move the Corporation the and Government Secretary was essentially, intended not to satiate the private interest of the petitioner, but was aimed to ensure that the Corporation and the Secretary addressed themselves on a larger public issue which may require consideration. When the Government were satisfied that the Corporation has taken a proper decision, as could be seen from Ext.P10, in my view, it would be too technical to insist that the petitioner ought to have been heard by the Secretary to the Government. Situational justice does not call for such hearing, at any rate, for the writ court, to point the powerful finger of writ against the Government. Hearing at one stage has rendered justice in the matter and it would only result in further dragging of the acquisition proceedings and manifest miscarriage of justice WPC.31955/08 Page numbers qua the larger public interest, if this Court interferes with the impugned orders in any manner. I say this in this context in view of the fact that there is no admissible ground for the petitioner to wriggle out of the acquisition that has been made. If there is public agitation, it is a matter for the State Executive to make use of its police power, for none is above the law and it shall be so. In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.30/7.