Unni Narayanan vs The District Collector on 21 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28872 of 2004(K)


1. UNNI NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,A GED 41
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DIST.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :21/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                 ==================
                  W.P(C)No.28872 of 2004
                 ==================
          Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008.

                        J U D G M E N T

Certain properties belonging to the petitioner was acquired

for the Periyar Valley Irrigation Project in the year 1950 along

with other properties. All the properties so acquired were not

required for the project and part of which is kept unused now. It

so happens that the land acquired from the petitioner is part of

those unused properties. The petitioner now seeks a direction to

the respondents to assign that the land to the petitioner.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the state in which it

is inter alia contended that although the land is now remaining

unused, the same may be needed for future expansion. It is

further contended that in any event acquired properties cannot

be returned to the original owner, even if the same is remaining

unused. Going by the Supreme Court decision on the subject,

such unutilized acquired land can only be sold in public auction

is the contention.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. There is no law which enables the petitioner to get back

W.P(C)No.28872 of 2004 – 2 –

the properties acquired from him even if the same is remaining

unutilized. It is not necessary that every inch of the acquired

land should be utilized by the Government for the purpose for

which it is acquired. Acquisition is based only on the estimated

requirements. Even if there is unutilized land the same cannot

be returned to the original owner. In fact it has been held so by

the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala and Others v.

M.Bhaskaran Pillai and another [(1997) 5 SCC 432.]

In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this

writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs