Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 84 (KER)

BALAN v. STATE OF KERALA

1982-03-10

U.L.BHAT

body1982
Judgment :- 1. The Managing Director of the Kerala State Film Development Corporation (4th respondent) applied before the Government for acquisition of land in portions of R. S.48/9 and 49/5 of Thrichambaram Desom in Taliparamba Town in Cannanore District measuring about 50 cents for the construction of a cinema theatre by the corporation. The representatives of the 4th respondent as well as the Land Acquisition Officer (third respondent) found this land to be most suitable for the purpose. Accordingly, a notification under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short'the Act') was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 13-2-1979 calling upon persons interested to file objections within 30 days thereof. Under S.3 of the Act read with R.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules (for short 'the Rules') notice was issued on 26-2-1979. Petitioner and bis brother who had purchased portions of these plots in 1977 are employed in Abudabi since a long time. The statutory notice intended for the petitioner was despatched by registered post to his foreign address and was received by him on 7-3-1979 (Ext.Pl).Ext.Pl mentioned that a notification under S.3 (1) of the Act has been published in the Gazette dated 13-2-1979 and he is required to file objection within 30 days of that date. The petitioner submitted objection before the third respondent and the same was received only on 2 41979. which was beyond 30 days of 13-2-1979. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Officer did not hear the petitioner or his counsel and dispensed with a further hearing under S.5 (1) of the Act, proceeded to submit a report to the Collector which was in due course received by the Board of Revenue and the Board took a decision in favour of the acquisition and in due course, a declaration under S.6 of the Act was issued and published in the Gazette. According to the respondents, an award enquiry after due notice was held and award has also been made and published and the compensation money has been paid by the 4th respondent to the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner has filed this O. P. to quash Ext. P1 notice and all subsequent proceedings and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings or taking possession of the land. It may be noticed that according to respondents possession also has been taken long ago. 2. The petitioner has filed this O. P. to quash Ext. P1 notice and all subsequent proceedings and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings or taking possession of the land. It may be noticed that according to respondents possession also has been taken long ago. 2. There is no dispute that a notification as contemplated under S.3(1) of the Act was published in the gazette dated 13-2-1979 and individual notice under S.3 (1) of the Act read with R.3 of the Rules was served on the petitioner at Abudabi on 7-3-1979. Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules as well as the notice he was required to prefer objection, if any, to the proposed acquisition within 30 days of the gazette publication namely, 13-2-1979. The objection preferred by him was actually received by the Land Acquisition Officer on 2-4-1979, that is beyond the time limited by the statute, the rules and the notice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer had a duty to hear the petitioner or his counsel and bold a further enquiry and at any rate, there is a denial of principles of natural justice involved in not hearing the petitioner and not considering his objections. 3. The broad scheme of the Act and the Rules may now be noticed. According to S.3 whenever it appears to the Government or the Collector that land in any locality in the State or within the jurisdiction of the Collector is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the gazette or in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the locality and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. Thereupon the concerned officers or their servants and workmen have power to enter the land and take measurements, make marks and do other necessary acts. Thereupon the concerned officers or their servants and workmen have power to enter the land and take measurements, make marks and do other necessary acts. Sub-sec (1) of S.5 states that any person interested in any land notified under S.3(1) may within 30 days after the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition Sub-sec 2 states that every such objection shall be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by counsel and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, make report or reports, as the case may be, to Government or to the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, containing his recommendations together with the record of proceedings held by him for their decision and the decision of the Government or the Board of Revenue shall be final. S.6 states that subject to the provisions of Part VII of the Act, Government or the Board of Revenue on being satisfied after consideration of the report under S.5(2) that any particular land is needed for public purpose, a declaration or declarations may be made to that effect and every such declaration shall be published in the gazette or in two daily newspapers having wide publication in the locality. S.7 contemplates a direction to the Collector to make order for acquisition of the land consequent to the declaration. Measurements and other details are provided under S.B. S.9 requires the Collector to give public notice of the intention of the Government to acquire the land and that claims of compensation may be made to him. S.9(3) requires the Collector to serve individual notices on the persons interested Ss 11 and 12 provide for enquiry and award by the Collector regarding the compensation amount and apportionment. S.18 deals with the power to take possession. 4. R.3 of the Rules provides for the issue of individual notice. S.9(3) requires the Collector to serve individual notices on the persons interested Ss 11 and 12 provide for enquiry and award by the Collector regarding the compensation amount and apportionment. S.18 deals with the power to take possession. 4. R.3 of the Rules provides for the issue of individual notice. It states that a notice shall be issued to the interested persons requiring them to lodge before the Collector within 30 days after the issue of the notification under S 3 (1) of the Act a statement in writing containing their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition and the notice should also be published in the locality and copies affixed in the offices of the Collector, Tahsildar and Village Officer. R.5 (b) states that if objections are received from an interested person within the time prescribed in S.5 (1). the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objection and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the requisitioning officer or department. Sub-clause (c) requires the Collector to bear the objector or his pleader and the representative of the requisitioning department and record any evidence that may be adduced in support of the objections. R.6 states that on completion of the enquiry, the Collector shall submit the case with all connected records for the decision of the Government or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. Under R.5 (2) he shall forward a draft of the S.6 declaration. R.7 refers to the satisfaction of the Government or the Board of Revenue and a declaration under S.6 being made and published in the gazette. 5. The above provisions make it clear beyond any doubt that a person interested in the land is entitled to a notice under R.3 of the Rules and he has a right to file objections to the proposed acquisition within 30 days from the date of the publication in the gazette of the notification under S 3 (I) of the Act. When such an objection is filed, the Land Acquisition Officer has a statutory duty to hear the objector or his counsel and hold such further enquiry as he deems necessary before making a recommendation and forwarding the report with connected records to the Government or the Board of Revenue for final decision. When such an objection is filed, the Land Acquisition Officer has a statutory duty to hear the objector or his counsel and hold such further enquiry as he deems necessary before making a recommendation and forwarding the report with connected records to the Government or the Board of Revenue for final decision. The latter is to take a final decision on the basis of the records so submitted and the final decision must end in a declaration which is to be published in the gazette. It is obvious that the interested person must file objections within 30 days after the publication of the S.3(1) notification in which case alone he secures the right of hearing before the Land Acquisition Officer and the right to participate in any further enquiry which the Land Acquisition Officer may decide to hold in his discretion. A person who has not filed objections at all or a person who has filed objection beyond the time limited by S.3 (1) of the Act, obviously has no right of hearing or of participation in the further enquiry. The provisions of S.5 () and the relevant rules cannot be so interpreted to mean that a person who has not objected or a person who has filed objection beyond the time limited under the statute should be heard or enabled to participate in any further enquiry. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw a distinction between a person who has not objected at all and a person who has objected but beyond 30 days from the date of the publication in the gazette of S.3 (1) notification. According to him, the former has no right of hearing or participation in the enquiry while the latter has such a right. There is no basis for such a distinction in the provisions of S.5 of the Act and R.5 of the Rules. Both definitely and categorically state that objection has to be filed within the time limited and it is only such an objector who is to be heard. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at any rate, principles of natural justice and the values inherent in R.3 and 5 would require the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the petitioner since before the Land Acquisition Officer prepared and submitted the report to the Board of Revenue he had received the objections. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at any rate, principles of natural justice and the values inherent in R.3 and 5 would require the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the petitioner since before the Land Acquisition Officer prepared and submitted the report to the Board of Revenue he had received the objections. When the provisions of the statute and the rules are clear to the effect that it is only an objection filed within time that has to be considered and only such an objector is to be heard, this Court will not be justified in holding that such a right would vest either in a non-objector or in a person who has filed objections out of time It would not be proper to import any principle of natural justice in the scheme found in the various provisions of the Act and the Rules, if it be a principle which is not accepted by the scheme. The fact that though the objection was filed out of time, it had been received by the Land Acquisition Officer within 30 days of the date on which the petitioner received the R.3 notice and before the Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report, will not vest in the Land Acquisition Officer a duty to consider the objection or hear the objector; nor is there anything in the Act or the Rules which vests in such a person a right to be heard. R.3 notice served on the petitioner clearly stated that he has to file objections within 30 days after 13-2-1979. He should have taken care to ensure the same. Having failed to do so, it is not open to him now to contend that even though he has not followed the statutory requirements, he should have been heard by the Land Acquisition Officer. 8. The Land Acquisition Officer dispensed with the hearing and any further enquiry under the circumstances of the case. Yet, the report submitted by him to the Board of Revenue and read out in Court by learned Government Pleader shows that he did advert to the important aspects raised in the petitioner's objection and the Land Acquisition Officer did not find the same as tenable. Thus it may be seen that even though the petition was filed belatedly, it had received consideration at the hands of the statutory authority and the petitioner can possibly have no real grievance. Thus it may be seen that even though the petition was filed belatedly, it had received consideration at the hands of the statutory authority and the petitioner can possibly have no real grievance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the question whether the purpose for which land is sought to be acquired is a public purpose and whether this particular land should have been acquired at all.1 do not think, in the circumstances of the case, this Court will be justified in recording findings on these questions in this O.P. The purpose is the construction of a cinema theatre for the Film Development Corporation. The Corporation has been started with a view to promote films of aesthetic, cultural and educational value and with a view to improve the taste of the public for good films of the nature mentioned above. The purpose why the Corporation wants a cinema theatre in every Taluk is not for encouraging commercial films, but to encourage films with artistic, intellectual and cultural values. In the context of increasing awareness regarding the contribution of the commercial films in lowering public taste and in the context of lack of attention being shown by the commercial films to these values, it cannot be said that the chain of cinema theatres sought to be established is not a welcome or laudable project. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a public purpose is one which promotes public health, safety, general welfare, security, prosperity and contentment of all inhabitants of a particular area. On the materials placed before me, it cannot be said that the purpose for which the land is required namely, construction of a cinema theatre for the corporation is not one to promote general welfare or morals or contentment. I find no reason also to accept the contention that the concerned authority should not have selected this particular land for the purpose of acquisition. It is situated in Taliparamba town and its location is suitable for the aforesaid purpose. It is stated that it adjoins the local high school. The sale deed of the petitioner shows one of the boundaries as the high school compound. It is situated in Taliparamba town and its location is suitable for the aforesaid purpose. It is stated that it adjoins the local high school. The sale deed of the petitioner shows one of the boundaries as the high school compound. Even if that be so, considering the fact that what is being established is not a commercial cinema theatre, but a cinema theatre to be run by the Corporation, I do cot think there could be any legitimate criticism against the selection of the location either. In this view, the OT deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed but under the circumstances, without costs. Dismissed.