IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2060 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THE JANAKEEYA SAMITHI, WALAYAR, DAM P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY CONVENOR, N.THANKACHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ASWATHY, WALAYAR P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. D. THOMAS, S/O. DAVID, THADATHIL HOUSE, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. FATHIMA MOIDU, W/O. MOIDU, C/O. SADIKKALI, D.NO.1305, MAFANA HOUSE, -DO--DO-. 4. RAJKUMAR @ KANNAN, S/O. MANI, DOOR NO.1092, A.S.HOUSE, -DO- -DO-. 5. SAKUNTHALA, W/O. RAJKUMAR -DO- -DO-. 6. UDUMAN, S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED, DOOR NO.1091 D, DAM ROAD, WALAYAR,PALAKKAD DIST. 7. V.S. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. V.G.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RAHUL NIVAS,-DO--DO-. 8. BALKEES, W/O. KUNJAHAMMED, D.NO.1090, -DO- -DO-. 9. RADHA VIJAYAN, W/O. VIJAYAN, D.NO.1086 D, -DO- -DO-. 10. SUDHEVAN, S/O. KANDANKUTTY, D.NO.1086 C, -DO- -DO-. W.P.(C) 2060/2008 : 2 : 11. DHANUSHKODI, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, RAM VISHNU NIVAS, -DO- -DO-. 12. MUTHUMANICKAM, S/O.RAMASWAMY, D.NO.95, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G) II, PALAKKAD. R1 to R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.G.SUNIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2060 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the owners of land situated at Walayar. They are challenging Exts.P1, P2 and P11. Exts.P1 is the notification by which the Government had accorded sanction for the construction of an integrated Check Post at Walayar in Block No.32 of Pudussery East Village in Palakkad District through Fast Track Mechanism. Ext.P2 is issued by the Additional Secretary to Government (Taxes), according sanction to the District Collector, Palakkad, to acquire 12.49 Hectares of land, invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). I am told, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act also. Ext.P6 is a notice issued to the petitioners and others asking them to appear for award enquiry. On receipt of Ext.P6 notice, petitioners have filed their objections, Ext.P7 being one of the objection filed by the 2nd petitioner. The District Collector had convened a meeting of petitioners and others on 24.9.2007 for hearing their objections. Ext.P8 is the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer for and on behalf of the District Collector. It is seen that in accordance with the W.P.(C) No.2060/2008 2 decision of the meeting, a joint inspection was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer along with Sales Tax Deputy Commissioner on 5.10.2007. It was reported that if the houses are excluded, an area of 1.5 acres also have to be exempted. On the strength of that report, the District Collector rejected the request of the petitioners filed before the Minister under Ext.P11 letter. Therefore, the challenge in this writ petition is directed against Exts.P1, P2 and P11. 2. 3rd Respondent, Land Acquisition Officer, had filed a statement admitting that three of the petitioners have filed a petition before the Honourable Chief Minister on 13.8.2007, and on receipt of the same, the Honourable Chief Minister ordered to convene a meeting of all the petitioners and others and decide the matter in issue. It was further stated that the petitioners requested to exempt 17 house sites which situate at the northern side of the proposed land. After joint inspection, it was reported that the area covered by the houses will come to 1.5 Acres. It was further stated that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Salestax), Valayar Check Post, submitted a report on 7.11.2007 to the District Collector, stating that exemption is not at all practical and the request for exemption is to be rejected in toto. It is also submitted that KITCO was appointed as the Consultant, who W.P.(C) No.2060/2008 3 submitted a project report after detailed study. It is further submitted that any exemption in the extent required for the project will badly affect the check post project and it is not possible to exempt any land from acquisition. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the effect that the report submitted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Salestax), Valayar Check Post, was not furnished to the petitioners. It was further averred that Ext.P1 was passed by the 3rd respondent without considering the objections raised by the petitioners. It was also averred that respondents have a duty to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, and the Government is the authority to take a final decision in the matter. It was further averred that the procedure prescribed is not followed and Ext.P11 passed is without jurisdiction. It was also stated that 1.5 Acres sought to be exempted is situated at the northern corner of the total extent proposed to be acquired, and hence, the exemption can easily be granted and a corresponding area can easily be acquired for the vacant land available. W.P.(C) No.2060/2008 4 4. I have perused the records and project report. It is a complex project which requires more than 12 Hectares of land. If any land is exempted, it may affect the entire project. Considering the urgency, Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked. Even though urgency clause was invoked, the grievance of the petitioners was heard by the Collector himself, who is above the Land Acquisition Officer. The request of the petitioners that the Government itself shall consider their objections cannot be allowed. So, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.