IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7501 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.A.MOHAMMED KUNHI (RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES) ZZRMA COTTAGE, MADATHIL,P.O. KALANAD, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL) TALUK OFFICE, KASARGOD. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. RAODS, PULIKUNNU, KASARAGOD. 5. BEKAL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BEKAL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD CORPORATE OFFICE 'JESIVIL' T.C.3/2408,MARAPPALAM PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE PROJECT OFFICE BEKAL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 'THANAL' NEAR BEKAL FORT, PALLIKERE P.O., KASARGOD DIST. BY G.P. SRI.BASANTH BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7502 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed me extensively and strenuously on the various grounds raised in this writ petition, wherein the proceedings for Acquisition of the petitioner's property for the purpose of “ setting up comprehensive tourism infra structure” are under challenge. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Basanth Balaji, the learned Government Pleader also. Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj would draw my attention to the judgment of the learned Single judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.6602/2008 and submit that though there cannot be any serious objection to the idea of tourisum purposes being public purposes, in the instant case what is proposed is to entrust the acquired properties with private hoteliers. But doing so it is private interest of those hoteliers, which will be achieved and not any public interest. 3. The writ petition is filed at a time when preliminary survey under Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act was attempted and Notification under Section 4 (1) had not been issued. The prayers in WPC No.7501/2008 2 the writ petition inter alia are the following; i). Quash Ext.P1. ii). Declare that respondents are not entitled to acquire any land on the basis of Ext.P9 or on the basis of any further notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, in furtherance to the survey as per Ext.P9. 4. Subsequent to the institution of the writ petition, notification under Section 4 (1) was promulgated and Ext.P14 produced along with I.A. 6787/2008 is a copy of that notification. There is nothing in Ext.P14 to indicate that sanction has been accorded for invoking the emergency provision of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, the petitioner and other persons have been called upon by individual notices in the nature of Ext.14 to file their objection to the Acquisition proposal. Pursuant to Ext.P14, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P15. On the basis of Ext.P15, the Land Acquisition Officer will necessarily have to conduct enquiry under Section 5A which would be finalised only after hearing the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to urge all the grounds which he has raised in this writ petition before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer while submitting his report under Section 5A to the Government/Land Revenue WPC No.7501/2008 3 Commissioner will address all the grounds raised before him by the petitioner at the time of hearing. Once report is prepared, the petitioner will be informed of the same. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk