IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36326 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SUNNY P.DAVIS, AGED 38, S/O. DEVASSY, PEREPPADAN HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, PULIYANAM P.O., PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, ALUVA TALUK. 2. PAULOSE, AGED 75, S/O. VAREETH, MOOLAN HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, PULIYANAM P.O., PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION), NATIONAL HIGH WAY NO.2, ALUVA - 683 501. *ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED: R4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS DIVISION), ERNAKULAM. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 23/12/10 IN I.A.NO.17680/10 IN WP(C) NO.36326/10 M) R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.36326 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 notification which is a composite notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext.P1 notification would reveal the very purpose of the acquisition. Evidently, it is for the widening of a road by name 'Angamaly Camp Shed Road' that the said notification was issued. The petitioners contend that they are absolutely unaware of a road by name 'Camp Shed Road' and in fact, the development is proposed to be effected on T.B road. However, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the question regarding the identity of the road concerned. The contentions raised in this Writ Petition would reveal that the petitioners are aware of the fact that the road described as Camp Shed road is nothing other than T.B road. The contention of the petitioners is that there is absolutely no reason for invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act and for dispensing with the 5A enquiry. In view of the said contentions, it has been prayed for interfering with the invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to file objection to Ext.P1 and to W.P.(C) NO.36326 of 2010 2 give them an opportunity to raise their objections. In other words, the petitioners are seeking for a direction to conduct 5A enquiry despite the invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act. The main grievance of the petitioners is that despite the availability of purambokku land on either side of the road in question, the respondents are attempting to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners. It is further contended that they earn their livelihood from the business conducted in the shop rooms situated in the land in question. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this Writ Petition by the third respondent. The circumstances under which urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and the decision to dispense with 5A enquiry have been specifically explained in the counter affidavit. That apart, it is stated therein that the land in the possession of Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly described as purambokku by the petitioners would also be acquired. It is specifically stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that as per the revised survey records approved by the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Ernakulam, an extent of 1.49 Ares of land along with compound wall, gate and other structures in survey No.409/2 (LA subdivision 409/43) belonging to the Little Flower W.P.(C) NO.36326 of 2010 3 Hospital, Angamaly also falls under the acquisition. That apart, it is specifically stated thereunder that the land in the proposed alignment passing through the property of Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly is not described in the revenue records as purambokku. Whatever that be, it is evident that the land belonging to the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly described as purambokku by the petitioners would also be acquired under Ext.P1 notification. Therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance based on the same. The only other aspects now call for consideration is whether the acquisition by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act and the decision to dispense with 5A enquiry was made with application of mind. It was as per proceedings No.LR (C6) 36088/2010 dated 16.8.2010 of the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram that the second respondent took a decision in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Act to dispense with 5A enquiry. The contention of the petitioners is that there is absolutely no urgency to invoke the provisions to Section 17 (4) of the Act and it was invoked only at the instance of certain persons residing adjoining of the T.B road. In short, according to the petitioners, invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act is malicious. The proposal of the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads W.P.(C) NO.36326 of 2010 4 Division, the proceedings of the District Collector, Ernakulam and other records that led to the issuance of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.8.2010 would invariably show that the urgency aspect of the issue was borne into by the Commissioner of Land revenue and the decision to dispense with 5A enquiry was taken with application of mind. The Camp Shed Road starts at M.C Road near Little Flower Hospital and ends at NH 47 near KSRTC bus stand having a total length of 1 KM. In fact, the said road acts as a link road connecting NH 47 and MC road. It is evident from the counter affidavit that during the traffic peak hours, the traffic congestion could be reduced to the minimum by diverting the traffic through Camp Shed Road. It is further stated thereunder that during the traffic peak hours, it would take hours to get rid of the traffic congestion. All these aspects were duly considered and it is after perusing the records that the second respondent issued the proceedings and granted sanction to issue a composite notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act. In view of the facts revealed from the records, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P1 notification was issued invoking Section 17(4) of the Act and the decision to dispense with 5A enquiry was taken with application of mind. When such a decision to dispense with 5A enquiry is taken with W.P.(C) NO.36326 of 2010 5 application of mind, there is no scope for any interference. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36326 of 2010 6 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36326 of 2010 7