IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38019 of 2008(A)
1. ACHUTHA KURUP, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. SARASWATHI AMMA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
4. V.G. LATHA, SARAVAN,
5. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.38019 of 2008-A
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioners raise a complaint regarding a
proposal to acquire a parcel of land. The matter
reached this Court and Ext.P4 judgment was issued
striking down the invocation of the emergency
clause and leaving open for consideration, the
need for the acquisition.
2.The Deputy Collector, LA appears to have made a
report essentially against the proposed
acquisition. This is apparent from the third
paragraph of the impugned Ext.P6 whereby the Land
Revenue Commissioner overruled the objections of
the petitioners but the impugned decision is
rendered on the ground that the counsel appearing
for the petitioners did not appear to argue but
had sought adjournment and that being a land
WP(C)38019/2008 -: 2 :-
acquisition matter, it cannot be delayed.
3.The petitioners have a case that the acquisition
is only for the purpose of helping a vested
private interest and the proposal is only in
furtherance of the commercial interest of that
person. Whatever that be, having regard to the
opinion of the Deputy Collector, LA,
Thiruvananthapuram who conducted site inspection,
it was only proper that the Land Revenue
Commissioner ought to have taken a complete stock
of the relevant materials and concluded as to
whether the particular land in question is
required for the particular purpose and whether
such particular purpose would amount to a public
purpose for the purpose of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Short of it, the impugned decision
fails. The same is accordingly set aside.
Taking note of the fact that the Corporation has
filed a counter affidavit, it is appropriate that
the Land Revenue Commissioner expedites the fresh
WP(C)38019/2008 -: 3 :-
consideration of the issue. Let this be done
within an outer limit of four months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable
this, the parties are directed to mark their
appearance before the Land Revenue Commissioner on
the 1st of July, 2009 so that, that officer can
fix an appropriate date for hearing. The writ
petition is ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/170609