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. 37667 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SOPHIA, W/O.RASHEED KHAN, PADINJATTE VEEDU, KUTTIKKADA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA)NO.I, KOLLAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37667/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEE NO.3352 DT.7.11.1990 OF ERAVIPURAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT.18.5.2005 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DT.17.3.2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION KL/TV (N) 12/2006-08 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DT.10.10.2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 10.12.2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE REVENUE MINISTER AND THE COPY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DT.01.03.2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.7873/2008 DT.09.6.2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.22.9.2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PETITION DT.13.11.2008 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.01.12.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(C1) 20499/08 DT.15.11.2008 EXT.R3(a): COPY OF GOVT ORDER DT.09.8.2007. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE GUIDELINES. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE LETTER TO GOVT. OF INDIA DT.17.11.2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.37667 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner's husband is the owner of 1 Acre 3 cents of land in Eravipuram Village of Kollam Taluk. The State has taken steps to acquire a portion of the said land for implementing the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. Ext.P4 is the notification issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation before the Government against the proposed acquisition of her husband's property. This Court by Ext.P7 judgment directed the Government to consider that representation. The Government after hearing the petitioner rejected her representation by Ext.P8 order dated 22.9.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband has been served with award enquiry notice, Ext.P10 dated 1.12.2008. Challenging Exts.P4, P8 and P10, this Writ Petition is filed. W.P(C).No.37667/2008 2 2. According to the petitioner, there is nobody hit by Tsunami, remaining to be rehabilitated. The acquisition is being made for EMS Housing Scheme. The petitioner and her family eke out a living from the property sought to be acquired. There are other suitable plots of land more convenient to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the acquisition of the petitioner's land is unjustified and vitiated by malafidies. So, she prayed for allowing the prayers in the Writ Petition. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit supporting the impugned proceedings under the Act. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the declaration under Section 6 has been made on 19.11.2008 and the award has been passed on 5.2.2009. It is also submitted that though the Scheme is given the nomenclature Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, in fact it is a scheme to resettle all the persons residing in the coastal area vulnerable to natural calamities like sea erosion, Tsunami etc. It is a centrally sponsored scheme . The scheme is implemented in the whole of the State and he submitted that the acquisition is being made for a public purpose. The respondents emphatically denied the allegations of malafidies and the alleged political motive behind the acquisition. W.P(C).No.37667/2008 3 We notice that the acquisition is made for a public purpose. A portion of the property of the petitioner's husband covered by Section 4(1) notification including a residential building therein has been exempted from acquisition. We notice that allegations of malafidies made by the petitioner are not substantiated. Mere bald allegations cannot be acted upon. The ground that there are other lands suitable for acquisition cannot be accepted. It is for the competent authority to identify the sites and issue the notification. In such matters, the judgment of the competent authority should prevail and this Court cannot sit in appeal over such decisions and substitute its decision for that of the competent authority. Going by the grounds raised, we are of the view that no tenable ground has been raised warranting interference with the acquisition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps