IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27479 of 2009(D)
1. BASITH C., S/O. MUHAMMED KOYA,
... Petitioner
2. M.GOPI, S/O. KUNJIKANDAN,
3. K.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
4. K.M.BABY GIRIJA,D/O. K.P.KUTTIKRISHNAN
5. MAMOOKOYA V.K. S/O.LATE ALAVI,
6. KATHEESSA KUTTY V.K. D/O.LATE KUTTIRAYIN
7. MYMOONATH V.K. D/O.LATE KUTTIRAYIN,
8. ASHRAF, S/O. MUHAMMED KOYA,
9. PRABHAKARAN, MUNDAKATHUDY HOUSE,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION,
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,RAMANATTUKARA,
6. THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos. 27479 & 31231 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The issue raised in these writ petitions are connected
and therefore, the Writ Petitions are heard together and are
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners challenge the notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of
acquisition of 32.0479 hecters of land for establishing a
Knowledge Park by the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation.
3. The first contention raised is that Section 4(1)
notification was issued on 3/12/2007 and that declaration under
Section 6(1) was made only on 26/2/2009. It is contended that
since Section 6(1) declaration was made beyond one year from
Section 4(1) notification, the proceedings have lapsed.
4. From the counter affidavit filed by the KINFRA, it is
seen that Section 4(1) notification was issued by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 3/12/2007, published in the Gazette on
4/12/2007 and in the newspaper on 1/1/2008 and 4/1/2009. It
WPC NO. 27479 & 31231/2009 -2-
is stated that this notification was published in the locality on
29/2/2008. There is nothing available on record to prove this
averment in the counter affidavit to be wrong. If that be so, the
last date of publication of Section 4(1) notification being on
29/2/2008, Section 6 declaration made on 26/2/2009 is well
within the one year period prescribed under the Land Acquisition
Act. Therefore, this contention has to be failed.
5. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wet Land Act 2008, conversion of paddy fields is
prohibited and therefore, paddy field cannot be acquired. It is
stated that the substantial portion of the land notified under
Ext.P1 is paddy field and that therefore, the acquisition
proceedings are illegal. It is true that the provisions of the
aforesaid Act 2008 imposes stringent conditions to prevent
conversion of paddy lands. However, that does not by itself
mean that paddy land cannot be acquired under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act. At best, it may mean that after
acquisition, if paddy land is to be converted, the requirements of
the Act 2008 have to be complied with. So long as there is no
WPC NO. 27479 & 31231/2009 -3-
law prohibiting acquisition of paddy land, this court will not be
justified in holding that the notification for the acquisition
proceedings in relation to paddy land is illegal. Therefore, this
contention also fails.
6. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that if the paddy lands are acquired, reclaimed
and converted into industrial plots, that will affect the water table
of the area and result in drought. However, in the paragraph 12
of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is seen
that they propose to develop water harvesting facilities utilising
about 20% of the land proposed to be acquired. Be that as it
may, having regard to my finding that the two contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not having
any substance, the acquisition proceedings cannot be interfered.
The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
JUDGE
dpk