IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26623 of 2009(W)
1. SASIKUMAR.P., S/O.MADHAVA MENON,
... Petitioner
2. DR.VIMALRAJ.P., S/O.A.K.MADHAVAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, KOYILANDI.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
5. URALANGAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C.)-------------------------
33394Nos.26623 (I) & 34430 (W) of 2009
(W), 26900 (F), 28057 (B),
(T), 34130
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that the 5th
respondent, a Co-operative Society, applied for establishment of a
Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for the purpose of an IT Park under the
Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the SEZ
Act for short). The 1st respondent State Government considered and
recommended the proposal in terms of the provisions contained in
the Act. The matter was taken up with the Board of Approval as
contemplated under the Act, and the Board of Approval has also
approved the proposal.
2. It is stated that for the purpose of establishing a Cyber
Park for the State, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for
acquiring a large extent of land in the neighbourhood of the
property of the 5th respondent. During the course of such
proceedings, on a representation made by the respondent Society
that it intends to establish an IT Park in the proposed SEZ, 14 acres
WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009
-2-
of land belonging to the Society was exempted from acquisition
along with the adjacent 12 acres which the Society proposed to
purchase. The petitioners submit that their land is situated within
the 12 acres thus exempted from the acquisition proceedings,
which is disputed by the Society.
3. Be that as it may, according to the petitioners, in view of
the provisions contained in the SEZ Act, the minimum required
extent of land in terms of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the SEZ Rules for short) is 25 acres and
that as the Society has only 14 acres of land, its proposal could not
have been recommended by the State Government or approved by
the Board of Approval. It is also their grievance that on the basis
that it is going to establish a SEZ, the Society and the District
Administration are pressurising the land owners like them to sell
their lands to the Society, at prices dictated by them. It is stated
that if land is to be acquired, the Society will have to take recourse
to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, which is the only
legally permissible mode of acquisition.
4. The Society has filed a counter affidavit. It has stated
that its land was exempted from acquisition proceedings on
WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009
-3-
condition that it should acquire the required extent of land to meet
the specification of the SEZ Act for establishing a Special Economic
Zone. It is stated that thereafter it has acquired 11 acres more and,
therefore as at present, it has a total extent of 25.8 acres of land. It
is also stated that the aforesaid property was acquired by way of
direct purchase and that the Society does not propose to get the
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act initiated for acquiring
any extent of land.
5. As far as the first contention of the petitioners that
possession of the minimum required extent of 25 acres of land is a
condition precedent for making an application under the SEZ Act or
its consideration is concerned, it is seen that under the provisions of
the SEZ Act, although minimum extent of land has been prescribed
in Rule 3 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, possession of the property does
not appear to be a condition precedent to make a proposal for
establishing a SEZ. On the other hand, Section 3(2) provides that
any person, who intends to set up a SEZ, may, after identifying the
area, make a proposal to the State Government concerned for the
purpose of setting a SEZ. Sub Section (3) also provides for making a
proposal directly to the Board of Approval for approval, on
WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009
-4-
identifying the area. It is on such a proposal that the State
Government makes its recommendation, and the Board of Approval
considers request for its approval. This inference of mind is
supported by the contents in Form A prescribed in SEZ Rules, 2006.
Among other details, one of the queries to be answered in
paragraph 4 of the application is “if the land is not in ownership or
possession, steps being taken for acquisition of the land”. It is also
seen from Section 4 that after letter of approval under Section 3 is
obtained, the developer is to submit exact particulars of the
identified area to the Central Government and thereupon the Central
Government may after satisfying that the requirements of Section 3
(8) are fulfilled, notify the identified area as the SEZ. Therefore from
the above requirements of the Act, I am not persuaded to agree with
the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession and
ownership of the minimum required extent of land is a condition
precedent for making proposal to the State Government or to the
Board of Approval. If that be the case, neither the State Government
nor the Board of Approval can be faulted for the recommendation
and the approval, they have granted to the proposal made by the
Society for the establishment of the SEZ.
WP(C) Nos.26623, 26900 , 28057, 33394, 34130 & 34430 of 2009
-5-
The other grievance of the petitioners is that after obtaining
the approval as above, without resorting to the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, the Society is pressurising the adjacent land
owners to part with their properties in favour of the Society at prices
dictated by it. Property can be acquired by taking recourse to the
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act by direct purchase or by
surrender etc. Apart from such legally permissible methods, law
does not recognise a mode to acquire property by compulsion as
alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, unless the land is acquired in
the manner known to law, the Society cannot acquire property of the
petitioners. Therefore, it is clarified that none can compel the
petitioners to surrender ownership of their property in favour of the
Society in the manner as alleged by them. However, that does not
mean that the authorities cannot initiate proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act or under any such other permissible method
for acquiring title of the property belonging to the petitioners.
These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg