IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6800 of 2007(H)
1. JANAJAGRATHA (PEOPLE'S VIGILANCE),
... Petitioner
2. G. VELUSWAMY GOWDER,
3. CHINNAMUTHUSWAMY,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (G),
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :29/11/2007
O R D E R
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
=======================
W.P.(C) No. 6800 of 2007
=======================
Dated, this the 29th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is a registered voluntary organisation.
Petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to be farmers. 30 acres of land is
sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing the
integrated check post for Sales Tax and Motor Vehicles
departments at Valayar. It includes properties owned by the
petitioners 2 and 3. It is averred that there is a pond covering in
the area of 5 acres of land which is being used as natural
reservoir for collecting water. The water collected in the pond is
being used for cultivation purposes by owners of more than 60
acres of land situated in the nearby area. It is also averred that
the pond preserves ecology of the area by collecting rain water.
According to the petitioners the land where the pond is situated
is being acquired for the construction of the check post. It is
averred that it will destroy the entire agricultural activities in the
area and will cause irreversible damage to the environment and
W.P.(C) No. 6800/2007 -2-
ecology. It is also contended that, due to political interference
1.50 acres of land belonging to the sympathisers of a political
party in power is being exempted.
2. It is contended that the Valayar Check Post is the
busiest check post in Kerala. At present it is functioning in an
area having only an extent of 2.97 acres. An integrated check
post is absolutely essential to streamline the present odds and
difficulties faced by the public as well as staff. It is stated that
only 17 families are residing in that area and they are mostly
agricultural labourers. It is stated that the water holdings in the
area are very meager and is not as large as a proportion profiled
by the petitioners. In para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the
4th and 5th respondents on 16th August 2007, it is stated as
follows:
” The catchment area of the Walayar Dam is so near to the area.
Hence there is ample source of ground water in the area. The water
holdings in this area is very meagre and is not as large as a proportion
projected by the petitioner. It is submitted that the pond covers only an
extent of 3.80 acres. Moreover during summer the pond dries up. It is
pertinent to note that the project report of M/s.KITCO suggest that the
pond will be embellished and preserved in all its pristine beauty and
grace and the pond will be utilised for harvesting rain water.”
3. It is admitted by the 4th respondent that one Sri.
C.V.Vijayan, Sri.K.Sudevan and Sri.D.Thomas submitted a
W.P.(C) No. 6800/2007 -3-
petition before the Honourable Chief Minister of Kerala. The
District Collector was directed to convene a conference to decide
the issue. Accordingly, a meeting was convened and the District
Collector directed the the Deputy Commissioner and Special
Tahasildar to conduct a joint site inspection of land under
acquisition and submit a report in the matter. In the
supplementary reply affidavit it is stated that the requisitioning
authority had informed the District Collector that no exemption
can be granted to any person whose lands are sought to be
acquired. They had reported that if those land is exempted the
project will be adversely affected.
4. The learned Govt. Pleader on instructions from the
respondents has submitted that, no land has been so far
exempted. But going by the averments in the affidavit it would
appear that the respondents are not yet taken any decision in
the matter. If the respondents exempt any land sought to be
acquired for the ckeck post for the acquisition I do not find any
reason to deny the same benefit to the area covered by the
pond also. So there will be a direction to the respondents to
exempt the land covered by the pond also in case they exempt
any plot of land covered by the notification for the construction of
W.P.(C) No. 6800/2007 -4-
the Valayar integrated check post.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that though Section
17(4) was invoked an enquiry under Section 5A was conducted
with the case of the above stated persons who are similarly
placed as the petitioners but the petitioners are denied of that
benefit. It is argued that the District Collector had considered the
objections raised by some persons who are also affected by the
same acquisition in pursuance to the directions issued by the
Honourable Chief Minister.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
relying on a principle laid down in Padmavathi Amma v. State
of Kerala (1983 KLT (29) (F.B.)) has argued that before
issuing a declaration the statutory authority must be satisfied
that the ‘particular land’ will be suitable for the public purposes.
He also relied on the principles laid down in Intellectuals Forum
Thirupathy v. State of A.P. (2006 (3) SCC 549) and also
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v.
C.Konchappa and others (2006 (6) SCC 371). It is argued
that though it is the duty of the Government to take steps to
establish industries etc. for the welfare of the society it must
make every endeavour to maintain and sustain the ecology as
W.P.(C) No. 6800/2007 -5-
well as its impact on environment. It is pointed out that the
Apex Court had directed that a study on the impact is to be
conducted. The material on record shows that even though
urgency clause under Section 17(4) was invoked, objections of
some of the land owners who are likely to be affected by the
same notification were considered by the competent authority.
I do not find any reason to discriminate the petitioners alone.
Considering the fact that the allegation is that present acquisition
is likely to create imbalance of ecology, it is only just and proper
that either the Land Revenue Commissioner or the Secretary
concerned shall consider the objection of the petitioners before
issuing a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act and takes a
decision in the matter with due notice to the petitioners.
7. In the result the writ petition is disposed in the
following manner:
There will be a direction to the respondents to exempt
the land covered by the pond in case any land now notified for
the purpose of the construction of integrated check post at
Walayar is exempted. There will be a further direction to the
Land Revenue Commissioner/Secretary concerned who is the
competent authority to issue Section 6 declaration to hear the
W.P.(C) No. 6800/2007 -6-
objection raised by the petitioners with specific reference to their
objections regarding the acquisition of the pond situated within
the properties now sought to be acquired with due notice to
the petitioners and also requisitioning authority and take a
decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. Learned Government Pleader shall forward a copy of
the judgment to the competent authority. Until the matter is
heard and a decision is taken, dispossession of the petitioners
from the land notified is stayed.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
JUDGE
jp