IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 17809 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.P.KUNHI AYISHU ELARATHODAN VEETTIL VALIYAPARAMBA SHEHNAS, C.P. ROAD, CHOKLI P.O.,THALASSERY. BY ADVS. MR.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM, SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHOKLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY SECRETARY, CHOKLI, THALASSERY. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KANNUR. 3. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, THALASSERY. 5. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH, R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17809/2009: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER DT. 26/03/98. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO. 11582/01/98/LAD DTD. 11/01/99 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RENEWED ORDER NO19518/R.C/1/08 OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 22/08/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FILE NOTINGS OF THE R.1. AFTER EXT.P.3 DT. 21/04/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE R.1. BY THE LAND OWNERS IN THE PROPOSED LAND FOR ACQUISITION. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DT. 03/05/08. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE FILE NOTINGS OF THE R.1. AS ON 30/08/96 DT. 21/05/08. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DT. 15/10/08. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. A/16/09 OF THE R.2. DT. 28/02/09. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.4. DT. NIL. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.4. DT. 05/05/09. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 55 OF APPLICATION FEE REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LICENSE DT. 04/05/09. EXT.P.12.A: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.1. DT. 25/05/09 REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL ORDER GRANTED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH DTD. 27/09/1996. W.P.(C). NO.17809/2009-U: EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 12/10/2001 IN THE WRIT APPEAL NO. 1699/2001 AND 1783/2001. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 03/11/2001 THE COMMISSIONER APPROVED THE DRAFT DECLARATION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE DECLARATION NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC.6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 29/11/2001. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH AND THE GOVT. ON 19/06/2001. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 13/12/2001. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 02/08/2001. EXT.R1.H: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 07/09/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT. EXT.R1.I: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 26/12/2001 OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.R1.J: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/12/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF PANCHAYATH BEFORE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. EXT.R1.K: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 28/06/2002 IN O.P. 3483/2002. EXT.R1.L: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 28/04/2009. EXT.R1.M: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 25/03/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17809 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P10. By Ext.P3, the Government issued its decision that it will not take up the financial responsibility for the acquisition of the petitioner's land by the first respondent panchayat for the purpose of a mini stadium. Ext.P10 is issued by the land acquisition authority requiring the petitioner to delivery possession of the property in question. With the challenge against these two decisions, petitioner has, in an interlocutory application also, sought a direction for consideration of an application for building permit to construct a residential building. 2. Though the petitioner has not disclosed certain relevant facts in the writ petition, the counter affidavit of the panchayat and the materials produced therewith, along with the petitioner's exhibits, show that some time in 1996, there was a proposal to acquire the property in question; different views were then generated, including from the Government, that panchayat does not have the financial ability to go for the deal. With the passage Wpc 17809/2009 2 of time, the petitioner moved this court in 2001, challenging the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The dismissal of that writ petition led to a writ appeal, decided upon as per Ext.R1(b) judgment. The Division Bench confirmed the directions of the learned Single Judge that the enquiry under Section 5A has to be held. Having not dispensed with such enquiry, the land acquisition officer stood directed by this Court to wholly ignore whatever correspondence had taken place between panchayat and the State Government on the issue of locating the public stadium and to proceed to decide the matter strictly on the basis of the materials presented before him in the enquiry under Section 5A. 3. Following Ext.R1(b)judgment rendered on 12.10.2001, it is a matter of record that the Land Revenue Commissioner decided on the issue and Ext.R1(d) declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. That declaration, following Section 5A enquiry, remains unchallenged for the last nearly 8 years. Wpc 17809/2009 3 4. The petitioner, through her learned counsel, pointed out that in Ext.P9, the performance audit superintendent had indicated that the land value, going by market rate, would be around Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The veracity of that statement in Ext.P9 is seriously challenged by the panchayat. 4. For one thing, Ext.P9 is dated 28.2.2009, whereas the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 etc, are much earlier. Whatever be the relevant date for consideration of the land value for determining the compensation, the authority to decide it, at the first instance, is the Collector. Ext.R1(m) has been issued by the Collector, disclosing to the requisitioning authority(panchayat), the amount to be deposited for the acquisition. Following the interim order dated 20.7.2009, the panchayat states that it will deposit the amount covered by Ext.R1(m). It cannot be said that the panchayat is unjustified in taking that stand, as of now. 5. Any question of enhancement of compensation is a matter that the petitioner has to work out at the hearing in the Wpc 17809/2009 4 award of enquiry or if still aggrieved, by making appropriate application for reference to the competent court. 6. The petitioner cannot push on the panchayat, the statements contained in Ext.P9. The fact that the petitioner refers to Ext.P9 itself indicates that the attempt is only to see that she generates the best possible compensation, particularly when the need for which the acquisition is made cannot be characterized as one which is not a public purpose. 7. The request of the petitioner for building permit is made some time in 2009. Even if the petitioner says that it is for the purpose of residence of her son, who is deaf and dumb, I do not find any ground to issue any direction to consider any application for building permit since acquisition proceedings were commenced with the issuance of Section 4(1) notification, followed up by Section 6 declaration, and now, notice for dispossession has also been issued. 8. I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the issuance of the impugned orders/notices. Hence, writ Wpc 17809/2009 5 petition fails. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek relief in relation to the quantum of compensation, before the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. No costs. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/9