IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35510 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. V.SREEDHARAN, S/O.V.P.KELUKUTTY, 'CHAITHANIYA' POOKKAD, P.O.CHEMANCHERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. V.GOVINDAN, S/O.V.P.KELUKUTTY, ANASWARA POOKKAD, PO.CHEMANCHERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. K.GIRIJA, D/O.V.P.KELUKUTTY, BLUEHEAVEN, NUT STREET, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 4. V.KALLIANI, D/O.V.P.KELUKUTTY, 'USHUS' CHETTIPPADY.P.O, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. A.K.RAJANI, D/O.A.K.CHATHUKUTTY,'SREYAS' PO.KAKKUR, VIA.NANMUNDA KOZHIKODE. 6. V.PRASANNA, D/O.V.P.KELUKUTTY, POONATATHIL HOUSE, PO.THIRUVANNOOR NADA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR) SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KOILANDY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.35510/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI, DT.3.11.2008 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI, DT.3.11.2008 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P1(b): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI, DT.3.11.2008 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P1(c): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI, DT.3.11.2008 OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P1(d): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI, DT.3.11.2008 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P1(e): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI, DT.3.11.2008 OF THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA DT.13.8.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TO TAHSILDAR, DT.15.4.2008. EXT.P4: COPY O F REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE DT.28.7.2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANCHERI TO TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE, DT.7.4.2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35510 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner's are aggrieved by the acquisition of their land having a total extent of 1.012 Hectres in Re-survey No.6/3 of Chemancheri Village in Koyilandi Taluk in Kozhikode District. Ext.P2 is the notification issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioners, there were altogether three proposed sites. According to them, the other two sites were more suitable and less expensive. But, the authorities have wrongly chosen the property of the petitioners. This is evident from Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer dated 7.4.2008. In fact, there is no urgency to invoke the emergency clause under Section 17(4) and to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. If the petitioners' got a chance under Section 5A of the Act, they would have pointed out the irrationality in preferring their land. W.P.(C) No.35510/2008 2 So, the invocation of the emergency clause under Section 17(4) has seriously prejudiced them. Therefore, they prayed for quashing Ext.P2 notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 2. The respondents have filed a statement disputing the contentions of the petitioners. The respondents submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer identified the land in consultation with the concerned Local Self Government Institutions. Altogether 20 sites were identified in Kozhikode District for the resettlement scheme. One of them belongs to the petitioners. 73 families in the Chemancheri Grama Panchayat are proposed to be resettled in the land of the petitioners. The suitability of the land was assessed by the Local Self Government Institutions and Government officials. The petitioners are not residing in that land. It is free from encroachment and no buildings are in it. It is suitable for house construction also. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the Government was constrained to invoke the emergency clause, in view of the time frame fixed by the Central Government for the execution of the scheme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme. Initially, the W.P.(C) No.35510/2008 3 direction was that the scheme has to be executed before 31.3.2009. In that context, the Government decided to invoke the emergency clause. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Choice of a land is primarily for the authorities concerned to make and the Court cannot sit in appeal over it. In land acquisition matters, it is a usual general contention of all petitioners that some other land will be more suitable, so that their land will be spared. But, the respondents in their submission have pointed out that after due process of consultation and evaluation, the sites were selected. We notice that though Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer supports the petitioners, the superior officers have chosen not to follow that. So, the better wisdom of the superior officers will normally prevail in such administrative matters. Even if a discordant note had been struck by one of the officers at the lower level, it will not in any way affect the validity of the proceedings or the choice of a particular site. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of the competent authority in these matters under Article 226 of the Constitution W.P.(C) No.35510/2008 4 of India. We are of the view that no ground has been made out warranting interference with Ext.P2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps