IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14289 of 2010(I)
1. C.M. HARIDASAN, AGED 4O YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK,
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
6. THE REGISTRAR,
7. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.G.SURESH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :25/05/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 14289 of 2010-I
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking to quash
Exts.P1 to P3 and for a further direction to the second respondent to
consider and take an appropriate action on Ext.P6 representation.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.145 cents of
property situated in Sy. No.4/29 of Velappayya Village of Thrissur Taluk.
The property, according to the petitioner, is near to the 6th respondent, viz.
Kerala University of Health and Allied Science. By the impugned order, the
Government has granted sanction to the 6th respondent to acquire 17.95
acres of land. The petitioner has raised various grounds in the writ petition
to contend that the acquisition is initiated for a malafide purpose and there
is no public purpose involved.
3. The third respondent has filed a statement, as directed by this
Court.
4. Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and
7 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.
5. Actually, going by Ext.P1, the Government has only granted
14289/2010 2
administrative sanction to initiate proceedings to acquire 17.95 acres of
land. True, that in Ext.P2 details regarding the properties, etc. have been
mentioned. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation before the
Government to reconsider the matter and to exclude his property from
acquisition.
6. Admittedly,the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act have
not been put into operation so far with regard to the proceedings for
acquisition. At this stage, it cannot be presumed that the land acquisition
proceedings will be initiated, requiring an adjudication at this stage. It is up
to the authorities concerned at the relevant point of time, if so advised, to
initiate such proceedings. Therefore, none of the rights of the petitioner are
affected at this stage. It is well settled that the aggrieved party can
challenge the land acquisition proceedings on specified grounds, by filing
an appropriate writ petition at that stage. What is now granted by the
Government is only an administrative sanction for acquisition. Therefore,
the objections regarding acquisition are not matters which the Government
can consider at this stage, even though the petitioner has moved the
Government by filing Ext.P6 representation.
Therefore, this writ petition is premature. The petitioner’s remedy, if
at all, is to raise a challenge once the notification under Section 4(1) of the
14289/2010 3
Land Acquisition Act is issued. Without prejudice to the said right, this
writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/