IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19374 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.DASAN S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 47 YEARS VARAPRATH HOUSE, KEEZHALLOOR PO, ANCHARAKANDI, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) THALASSERY. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,UIDSSMT, WSP DIVISION KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 19374 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Kerala Water Authority wanted to acquire a parcel of land from the petitioner. He wanted the Water Authority to consider acquiring the adjacent parcel also. The Water Authority acceded to that request. Nearly after a decade, the petitioner wanted a reversal of that process. But, the acquisition proceedings had not either been completed or dropped. The water authority ultimately conceded to the request of the petitioner that the parcel earlier offered by him need not be acquired. In lieu, he had also offered to surrender two cents of land to the Water Authority as and when required. When the Water Authority wanted the land acquisition authorities to drop the request of the Water Authority; the action for land acquisition having proceeded, to a large extent; the land acquisition authorities took the stand that the proceedings cannot be closed without defraying the expenditure for the acquisition. The Water Authority in turn, has now told the petitioner that it would not bear that expenditure and if the Wpc 19374/2009 2 petitioner wanted to resile from the earlier offer, he has to bear the extent sought for by the land acquisition authority. 2. A few things are certain. The decision of the Water Authority to accede to the request of the petitioner for acquiring the parcel offered by him contiguous to the one originally involved in the alignment is not a statutory matter. Water Authority, nevertheless, acceded to that exercise. If the Water Authority wanted it, it ought to have acquired the property by purchase or by other modes not referable to the Land Acquisition Act, unless it is an acquisition on agreement in terms of that Act. With the passage of ten years, acquisition proceedings were not completed and title to the said parcel never stood transferred to the Water Authority. It is also not a matter of record that any notification as provided for by the Land Acquisition Act or rules thereunder have been issued in relation to the parcel which the petitioner had offered in addition to his land originally involved in the alignment for acquisition. So much so, no jural relationship referable to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act or any contract which could bind down the petitioner had, in fact, crystallised. So much so, it is improper, in public domain, to compel the Wpc 19374/2009 3 petitioner to suffer the expenditure for the exercise of the land acquisition authorities or the Water Authority. It was for them to have regulated the matter appropriately in their own interest, being administrative bodies of governance. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Water Authority has requested for dropping the acquisition, it is ordered that no financial liability on account of such closure of proceedings shall be passed and mulcted on the petitioner. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/12/10