IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 2143 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31955/2008 Dated 03/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONERL IN THE W.P.(C) --------------------------------------------- INAYATHKHAN,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.C.M.ABDURAHIMAN KHAN,JAFERKHAN HOUSE, JAFERKHAN COLONY,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.(C) --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,LOCAL BODIES,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. 3. CORPORATION OF CALICUT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. R1 AND R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. BENNY GERVASIS ADV. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A.No. 2143 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T J. Chelameswar, CJ. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 3rd August 2009, the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 31955 of 2008 preferred the appeal. 2. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or direction quashing Exhibit P10 and P11. b) direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider afresh the petition filed by the petitioner as Exhibit P8 and P9 and pass appropriate orders after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner c) direct eh 2nd respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question till such reconsideration and d) issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 3. The factual background of the case is that certain property belonging to the petitioner was admittedly acquired invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Admittedly W.A.No. 2143 OF 2009 2 an award was passed on 14.05.2007, determining the compensation payable for the property so acquired. At no stage, admittedly,the petitioner objected to the acquisition proceedings. 4. Eventually, when the property was sought to be taken possession by the officers of the State, it was resisted by a crowd forcefully. At that stage, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.18840 of 2007. The matter was disposed of by judgment dated 31.03.2008. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “ A reading of the statement shows that a mob consisting of about 300 people including women and children gathered near the place of acquisition and informed the Revenue as well as Land Acquisition Authorities that they will prevent the construction of slaughter house at any cost. Since the award has already been passed, I do not think it is just and proper to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings at this stage, especially in view of the decision reported in G.C.D.A. v. Victoria Xavier (2001 (1) KLT 830). Regarding the alternate site I am of the view that it is for the local authority as well as State to take a decision in the matter. In view of the persistent W.A.No. 2143 OF 2009 3 opposition made by the local people, I am of the view that it is only just and proper that the Council of Calicut Corporation Council as well as State consider the request and take appropriate decision before taking possession of land. It is open to the petitioner to file petitions before the Secretary, Calicut Corporation and also before the Secretary to Government within two weeks from today pointing out the difficulties. On receipt of such a petition the Secretary shall place the same before Corporation Council who shall pass appropriate orders on it. Government shall also consider and pass appropriate orders in the petition. Such decision shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt of the petitions with due notice to the petitioner. Until then the possession of the land shall not be taken.” 5. It can be seen from the above that, this Court declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. However, having regard to the factual background, this Court made certain observations. The concerned authorities on a re-consideration of the matter declined to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. Hence the Writ Petition. 6. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the judgment under W.A.No. 2143 OF 2009 4 appeal, by which the learned judge of this Court declined to interfere with the decision of the Corporation and held as follows: “Even when Ext. P7 judgment was issued this Court was not inclined to interfere with the acquisition. May be that such a view was taken in the light of the law that it would be inadvisable or even impermissible to interfere when awards have been passed and the matter finalised. The opportunity given to the petitioner to move the Corporation and the Government Secretary was essentially, intended not to satiate the private interest of the petitioner, but was aimed to ensure that the corporation and the secretary addressed themselves on a larger public issue which may require consideration. When the Government were satisfied that the Corporation has taken a proper decision, as could be seen from Ext.P10, in my view, it would be too technical to insist that the petitioner ought to have been heard by the Secretary to the Government. Situational justice does not call for such hearing, at any rate, for the writ court to point the powerful finger of writ against the Government. Hearing at one stage has rendered justice in the matter and it would only W.A.No. 2143 OF 2009 5 result in further dragging of the acquisition proceedings and manifest miscarriage of justice qua the larger public interest, if this Court interferes with the impugned orders in any manner. I say this in this context in view of the fact that there is no admissible ground for the petitioner to wriggle out of the acquisition that has been made. If there is public agitation, it is a matter for the State Executive to make use of its police power, for none is above the law and it shall be so. We are in total agreement with the conclusion and the findings reached by the learned Judge. We do not see any reason to interfere with the same and the Appeal is dismissed. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk