IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 32802 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARK RESEARCH & EDUCATION FOUNDATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, LUBINA MANZIL, KOUMUDI NAGAR, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUSITION NO.1, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 32802/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 29.3.2006 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2008 IN WP(C) NO.18019/2008 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXT.P3 - COPY OF OBJECTION DATED MARCH, 2008 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - COPY OF REPORT OF ENQUIRY U/S.5A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. EXT.P5 - COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.9.2008 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - COPY OF REQUEST DATED 20.10.2008 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - COPY OF THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES OF TSUNAMI SCHEME. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THANDAPPER REGISTER. EXT.R3(b) – ORIGINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SUBMITTED TO THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER VIDE LETTER NO.LA3-51521/07 DT. 17.7.2008. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 9.8.2007. EXT.R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES. EXT.R4(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 17.11.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 32802 OF 2008-E ----------------------------------------- Dated 26th May, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a Trust, which is proposing to establish a Self Financing Dental College. It has taken on lease the land necessary for the same. While so, acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the said land for rehabilitating Tsunami victims. The petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed the competent authority to consider the contentions of the petitioner at the time of enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. The Land Acquisition Officer held a summary enquiry and sent a report to the Land Revenue Commissioner, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. The Land Revenue Commissioner considered the matter and rejected the objection of the petitioner and others, as per Ext.P5 order dated 17.09.2008. Subsequently, on 18.9.2008 Section 6 declaration was also made. This WPC 32802/2008 2 Writ Petition is filed, challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs. 2. According to the petitioner, there are more suitable sites, which are less expensive for acquisition. It submits, there are no more people waiting for rehabilitation, who are hit by Tsunami. Though these points were raised, they were not considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner, while passing Ext.P5 order. It is also understood that the present intention of the Government is to rehabilitate the encroachers in Kollamthode area. So, the petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P5 and all further proceedings pursuant to it. 3. The Government have filed a detailed counter affidavit. The land is acquired for rehabilitating not only Tsunami victims, but also for rehabilitating persons dwelling in Tsunami prone areas in Kollam district. The respondents support the action of the Government and pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. They have also pointed out that the petitioner being a lessee, has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition of the land. Only the owner can do that. In support of that submission, the respondents relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Administration v. Madan Lal Nangia [AIR 2003 SC 4672]. 4. After the filing of the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed an WPC 32802/2008 3 additional affidavit, producing a list of beneficiaries of Tsunami victims. According to the petitioner, many of the beneficiaries are not eligible to be rehabilitated, as they are residing far away from high tide line . 5. To meet the averments in the said additional affidavit, the 4th respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the Government have taken a major policy decision to rehabilitate not only those who are actually hit by Tsunami, but also who are residing in vulnerable areas. Under the scheme, it is proposed to re-settle 11000 families of the coastal villages, providing new houses at safer places. 6. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Admittedly, the acquisition is for a public purpose. If the Government frame a policy, not only to rehabilitate Tsunami victims, but also others, the same cannot be described as illegal. It is definitely a public purpose. Every petitioner would like to have his property spared and his neighbour's property acquired. So, the contention of the petitioner that there are other alternate suitable sites, cannot be accepted. The further contention of the petitioner that there are no more Tsunami affected people to be rehabilitated in Kollam area and therefore, the acquisition is unwarranted, cannot be accepted, in view of the averments of the respondents in the additional counter affidavit, to which we have already adverted above. WPC 32802/2008 4 7. Further, even if certain persons, who are ineligible, are included in the list of beneficiaries, we are of the view that the said defect will not have the effect of affecting the validity of the acquisition proceedings. In view of the above position, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether a lessee is a person interested, to challenge the acquisition of a land, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Administration v. Madal Lal Nangia [AIR 2003 SC 4672]. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nm/