IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 26623 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SASIKUMAR.P., S/O.MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT 'THEERTHAM', THIRUVANNOOR, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. 2. DR.VIMALRAJ.P., S/O.A.K.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT 'SWAPNA', H.NO.29/2298, PIPELINE ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.P.V.VIJAYAKUMAR SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKKODE. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, KOYILANDI. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLIKKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. 5. URALANGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (ULCCS), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MADAPPILLY P.O., KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R5 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 26900, 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.26623 (W), 26900 (F), 28057 (B), 33394 (T), 34130 (I) & 34430 (W) of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that the 5th respondent, a Co-operative Society, applied for establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for the purpose of an IT Park under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the SEZ Act for short). The 1st respondent State Government considered and recommended the proposal in terms of the provisions contained in the Act. The matter was taken up with the Board of Approval as contemplated under the Act, and the Board of Approval has also approved the proposal. 2. It is stated that for the purpose of establishing a Cyber Park for the State, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring a large extent of land in the neighbourhood of the property of the 5th respondent. During the course of such proceedings, on a representation made by the respondent Society that it intends to establish an IT Park in the proposed SEZ, 14 acres WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009 -2- of land belonging to the Society was exempted from acquisition along with the adjacent 12 acres which the Society proposed to purchase. The petitioners submit that their land is situated within the 12 acres thus exempted from the acquisition proceedings, which is disputed by the Society. 3. Be that as it may, according to the petitioners, in view of the provisions contained in the SEZ Act, the minimum required extent of land in terms of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the SEZ Rules for short) is 25 acres and that as the Society has only 14 acres of land, its proposal could not have been recommended by the State Government or approved by the Board of Approval. It is also their grievance that on the basis that it is going to establish a SEZ, the Society and the District Administration are pressurising the land owners like them to sell their lands to the Society, at prices dictated by them. It is stated that if land is to be acquired, the Society will have to take recourse to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, which is the only legally permissible mode of acquisition. 4. The Society has filed a counter affidavit. It has stated that its land was exempted from acquisition proceedings on WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009 -3- condition that it should acquire the required extent of land to meet the specification of the SEZ Act for establishing a Special Economic Zone. It is stated that thereafter it has acquired 11 acres more and, therefore as at present, it has a total extent of 25.8 acres of land. It is also stated that the aforesaid property was acquired by way of direct purchase and that the Society does not propose to get the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act initiated for acquiring any extent of land. 5. As far as the first contention of the petitioners that possession of the minimum required extent of 25 acres of land is a condition precedent for making an application under the SEZ Act or its consideration is concerned, it is seen that under the provisions of the SEZ Act, although minimum extent of land has been prescribed in Rule 3 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, possession of the property does not appear to be a condition precedent to make a proposal for establishing a SEZ. On the other hand, Section 3(2) provides that any person, who intends to set up a SEZ, may, after identifying the area, make a proposal to the State Government concerned for the purpose of setting a SEZ. Sub Section (3) also provides for making a proposal directly to the Board of Approval for approval, on WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009 -4- identifying the area. It is on such a proposal that the State Government makes its recommendation, and the Board of Approval considers request for its approval. This inference of mind is supported by the contents in Form A prescribed in SEZ Rules, 2006. Among other details, one of the queries to be answered in paragraph 4 of the application is “if the land is not in ownership or possession, steps being taken for acquisition of the land”. It is also seen from Section 4 that after letter of approval under Section 3 is obtained, the developer is to submit exact particulars of the identified area to the Central Government and thereupon the Central Government may after satisfying that the requirements of Section 3 (8) are fulfilled, notify the identified area as the SEZ. Therefore from the above requirements of the Act, I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession and ownership of the minimum required extent of land is a condition precedent for making proposal to the State Government or to the Board of Approval. If that be the case, neither the State Government nor the Board of Approval can be faulted for the recommendation and the approval, they have granted to the proposal made by the Society for the establishment of the SEZ. WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009 -5- The other grievance of the petitioners is that after obtaining the approval as above, without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Society is pressurising the adjacent land owners to part with their properties in favour of the Society at prices dictated by it. Property can be acquired by taking recourse to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act by direct purchase or by surrender etc. Apart from such legally permissible methods, law does not recognise a mode to acquire property by compulsion as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, unless the land is acquired in the manner known to law, the Society cannot acquire property of the petitioners. Therefore, it is clarified that none can compel the petitioners to surrender ownership of their property in favour of the Society in the manner as alleged by them. However, that does not mean that the authorities cannot initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or under any such other permissible method for acquiring title of the property belonging to the petitioners. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg