IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 36899 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU VARGHESE S/O. VARKEY, VARKEY VALLIKKAT, VAKATHANAM REP BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.M.ITTY, KALUKADAVIL HOUSE, MANARCADU P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIATE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LANDS REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SPL. TAHSILDAR (LA) KOTTAYAM. 5. THE VAKATHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VAKATHANAM PO, CHANGANACHERRY. 6. JAMES KUTTY VELANGAM PARA, VAKATHANAM. ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.K.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36899 OF 2009 (F) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 is a resolution passed by the respondent Panchayat on 25.10.2006 to acquire 18.57 ares of land belonging to one Sri. Mathew Kurian. Subsequently, sale deed Nos.3717/2006 and 3718/2006, 2.43 and 6.92 Ares out of the property mentioned in Ext.P2 were purchased by the petitioner. Thereafter Sri. Matehw Kurian submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 18.11.2006 to the Deputy Director of Panchayat, objecting to Ext.P2. The Deputy Director considered Ext.P3 and the proposal made by the Panchayat and issued Ext.P4 proceedings on 7.2.2007 approving the site and permitting the Panchayat to proceed with the acquisition in compliance with the statutory provisions. The Government also issued Ext.P5, according administrative sanction for proceeding with the acquisition. 2. In pursuance to the above and considering the urgency, Ext.P11 order was issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner on 28.3.2008, exercising the powers under Section 17(4) of the Land WPC.No.36899 /09 :2 : Acquisition Act and ordered that enquiry under Section 5A will be dispensed with. Based on the above, in May, 2008 Ext.P6 notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act dispensing with Section 5A enquiry and this notification was issued. In the meanwhile, by sale deed No.61/08, petitioner purchased 9.35 ares of property notified for acquisition. Thereupon, petitioner represented against Ext.P6 by filing Ext.P7. Representations were also made to the Government objecting to the acquisition, which were directed to be considered by this court in Ext.P14 judgment in WP(c).No.6557/09. Matter was considered and Ext.P16 order was issued rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and permitting the Panchayat to proceed with the acquisition. It is at that stage this writ petition was filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings and to prohibit the respondents from proceed with the acquisition proceedings. 3. The purpose for which the acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the Panchayat is for establishing a taxi stand. Petitioner has no case nor can it be contended that the setting up of a taxi stand is not a public purpose. The contention raised by the WPC.No.36899 /09 :3 : counsel for the petitioner in so far as the acquisition against his property is that in identifying the land in question, the Panchayat has not considered the availability and suitability of other lands in the neighbourhood. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the neighbourhood, other properties which are more suitable for establishing taxi stand are available and that the Panchayat has without any valid reason identified the petitioner's property. 4. In so far as this contention is concerned, first of all it should be stated that the choice of land to be acquired is essentially the duty of the requisitioning authority. Unless, the choice of the land can be sown to be vitiated by mala fides or extreme case of arbitrariness, this court will not be justified in interfering with it, even if it is is a case, where a different view is possible. None of these vitiating circumstances could be made out in this case. Petitioner seeks to substantiate his contention by stating that suitable plots are available on the eastern and western sides of the petitioner's property. However, counsel for the Panchayat points out that those properties are not vacant lands but are properties having WPC.No.36899 /09 :4 : structures including residential buildings. Therefore, as in the case of petitioner, those are also properties where buildings have been constructed. That apart, according to the Panchayat, petitioner's property is having access to roads on the north and south and it was therefore found to be suitable for the purpose of establishing the taxi stand and hence the Panchayat decided to acquire the land. If the facts are as stated above, I do not think that the petitioner can successfully challenge the decision of the Panchayat. 5. Another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that an extent of 5 acres of land already acquired by the Panchayat is available in the immediate neighborhood and that the said land is remaining unutilised and therefore could be made used of. This contention of the petitioner is answered by the Panchayat in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, where it is stated that the land is a paddy field purchased by the Pacnahayt and is situated about 2 Kms away from the junction where the taxi stand is required. It is also stated that the property was purchased under the Industrial Development Project of the SIDCO and that it has been handed over to SIDCO where preliminary works for starting an Industrial Estate WPC.No.36899 /09 :5 : has already started. There is no reply affidavit contradicting the averments in the counter affidavit. In the facts as above, this contention also cannot be accepted. Above being the two contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/