IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9039 of 2006(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SANTHA, D/O.LATE SANKARAN RAMAN, KURAVAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. * ADDL. R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED ADDL. R4: LAKSHMI, KURAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHCHERIMMAL MURI, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADDL. R5: K.G. RAMESH, KALLALIL HOUSE, EDANAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL. R6: B. SANTHAKUMARIAMMA, KALLALIL HOUSE, EDANAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL. R7: K. USHA KUMARI, KALLALIL HOUSE, EDANAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. * ADDL. R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/08/2009. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. ADDL. R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI , SMT.SABINA JAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9039/2006-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 1012/1992 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 28642/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 174/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/01/2006 SUBVMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.9039 of 2006-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. Judgment 1.Lekshmi was the kudikidappukari of Sankaran Raman. Landlord applied for shifting of that kudikidappu. That request was granted by the Land Tribunal. The consequential proceedings required an acquisition of land. Controversies arose between the landlord and the kudikidappukari regarding the identity of the land to be acquired. O.P.6405/1991 filed by the landlord led to W.A.1012/1992. While that writ appeal was heard by the Division Bench, notwithstanding the finding of the Bench that the Government Order impugned therein does not stand, it was pointed out at the bar that an alternate site had been acquired earlier. This resulted in the Division Bench recording the following as the last WPC9039/06 -: 2 :- paragraph of Ext.P1 judgment: “It is submitted at the Bar that an alternate site was acquired by the Revenue Divisional Officer and 80% of the value was deposited by the landlord. In that case the land that was already acquired is available for shifting the kudikidappu to that property. It is also made clear that in that case there is no necessity to acquire any new property.” 2.Thereafter, it appears that the Government proceeded to acquire the lands of one K.G.Remesh and others. That led to a writ petition by them resulting in Ext.P2 judgment issuing certain directions regarding the right to identify the land, however rejecting the other contentions of Remesh and others. That led to W.A.174/2004. The Division Bench apparently took the view that the petitioners, namely, K.G.Remesh and others, would have the opportunity to raise all their contentions after the publication of Section 6 notification. Accordingly, K.G.Remesh and others, WPC9039/06 -: 3 :- the petitioners/appellants in Exts.P2 and P3, sought leave to withdraw O.P.28642/2000. Accordingly, Ext.P2 judgment rendered in that original petition was vacated by the Division Bench and leave was granted to raise objections to Section 6 notification, if any published. 3.The writ petition in hand is filed by the heirs of Sankaran Raman on the ground that acquisition proceedings are being indefinitely delayed. During the course of hearing, it was noticed that it would be impermissible to issue any direction without K.G.Remesh and his two sisters whose lands are proposed to be acquired, being heard. When they came on record, they point out that even in Ext.P1 judgment, the afore-quoted direction was issued by the Division Bench and in view of the acquisition referred to in Ext.P1 judgment and the remittance of 80% of the land value in relation to that acquisition, there could be no further acquisition. WPC9039/06 -: 4 :- 4.However, the stand of the Government now is that the land involved in that acquisition is no more available since there was a withdrawal notification in relation to that acquisition and following Ext.P1, this was further clarified by saying that the land referred to in the last paragraph of Ext.P1 judgment cannot be taken possession of since there was already a withdrawal notification. This confusion could have been well avoided, if only the Government had brought to the notice of the Division Bench during the course of consideration of W.A.1012/1992 that there was no such acquisition pending. 5.Taking Exts.P1, P2 and P3 as successive judgments the last among them being Ext.P3, that will prevail at least to say that the parties can raise their objections to Section 6 notification. K.G.Remesh and others would, therefore, be entitled to raise all objections, including relying on the last paragraph of Ext.P1 judgment, WPC9039/06 -: 5 :- if entitled to. 6.As noted earlier during the course of this proceedings, the land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of shifting a kudikidappu is now held back for more than 30 years. It is, therefore, appropriate for the Government to consider ways and means of solving the issue of providing an alternate piece of land in terms of law because such cases tend to take away the confidence of the people in the different statute laws. The case in hand being one relating to land reforms, it is appropriate that the State Government gives a prompt and proper look to the entire facts and finds out ways and means to settle the issue between the land owner and the kurikidappukari as also any person from whom land is likely to be acquired. This is all the more so because the land owner himself has left with him only about 24 cents, including the land occupied by the kudikadappukari. The continuance of proceedings shall be with effect from the date on WPC9039/06 -: 6 :- which O.P.28642/2000 was filed and further proceedings in terms thereof shall follow in accordance with Exts.P2 and P3. The parties also point out that Section 75 of the KLR Act is relevant in deciding the identity of the property. Let the Government take a final decision in the matter after hearing the necessary parties within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1704