Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 210 (KER)

Mary James v. State of Kerala

2003-03-20

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

body2003
Judgment :- The challenge is with regard to Exts.P14 and P15 notifications. Ext.P15 is the Notification dated 15.5.2000 with regard to acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners comprised in Sy.No.76/4 of Kolari village having extent of 72 cents. The Notification was issued as the land was found necessary for a public purpose viz. for the construction of quarters for staff of Telecom Department. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Department has been trying to obtain one acre of land for the purpose of construction and that based on the objections raised by the respective land owners or other persons, three earlier Notifications did not fructify as they had either lapsed or were interfered with by this Court and that now attempt is to acquire the petitioners property using the urgency clause. It was also submitted that the petitioners are prepared to surrender another land provided the Government is willing to take over the same on negotiated sale basis. It is further argued that there is malafides involved in the present Notification in so far as one of the Engineers in the Telecom Department is interested in seeing that the land of his brother in law is not acquired for the purpose. 3. During hearing reference was made to the judgment marked Ext.P11 wherein based on similar contentions a learned Judge of this Court found that the Department could proceed with the offer for negotiated sale; that when considerable extent of alternative land is available to the Government; it should act in such a manner as to avoid detriment to citizens and that the Department should therefore proceed further with the proposal for negotiated purchase of the land comprised in R.S.No.80/1A of the Kolari Village. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government submitted that the aforesaid judgment was set aside by this court in Writ Appeal No.64/1990 which was decided on 18.9.1990. It was found therein that the Learned Judge went wrong in assuming that proceedings were initiated for negotiated purchase of land in Survey No.80/1A or that the proceedings for acquisition of the land in Survey No.76/4 (same land as involved in the present Original Petition) were bad. It was found therein that the Learned Judge went wrong in assuming that proceedings were initiated for negotiated purchase of land in Survey No.80/1A or that the proceedings for acquisition of the land in Survey No.76/4 (same land as involved in the present Original Petition) were bad. With regard to the telex message relied on by the learned Single Judge, it was clarified that no reliance could be placed on it as it only stated that a certificate in respect of one acre of land in R.S.No.80/1A had been issued to the Telecom District Engineer, Cannanore. From this no interference could be drawn that a decision was taken by the Department to acquire the land in Sy.No.80/1A in lieu of the notified land in Sy.No.76/4, as assumed by the learned Single Judge. It was also made clear that dropping of proceedings for acquisition of one land at one stage does not debar the Government from proceeding to acquire the same land through a subsequent Notification. The Bench further observed that there are reasons justifying non pursuit of the steps initiated for acquiring the petitioners land through the Notification dated 14.11.1995. The contention now raised that acquisition of the property of the petitioners would cause great hardship was also considered by the Bench and it was held that when land is acquired for a public purpose, interest of individuals have to yield to the larger interests of the public and that the proceedings for acquiring the property involved in the present case (RS 76/4) was not vitiated on any ground. 5. In view of the clear finding by the Bench of this Court as above and considering the similarity of the contentions advanced by the present petitioners now it is clear that they do not deserve any merit. It is surprising that de novo proceeding initiated in the year 1984 could be scuttled by one person or the other by resort to the Writ jurisdiction of this court for nearly two decades. The last attempt made to take possession of land through invocation of urgency provision also failed so far in view of the stay granted in the present case. 6. The last attempt made to take possession of land through invocation of urgency provision also failed so far in view of the stay granted in the present case. 6. I close the case with a categoric finding that nothing shall stand in the way of the Government in continuing acquisition proceedings based on the Notifications marked as Exts.P14 and P15 in the present case in view of the fact that the delay from 18.8.2000 till now was only in consequence of the stay granted by the Court which is saved under the Explanation under Section 11A of the LA Act 1894.