Judgment :- V.K. Bali, C.J. The Government of Kerala envisaged a project popularly known as ‘Smart City’. It is a dream project of the State, which is to be established in an area covering 1000 acres. This is to become a centre of global attraction. The Smart City is to be self contained one having every modern facility. As to establish such a massive project, the Government land was not sufficient and to make the dream project come true, a substantial chunk of land had to be acquired, the Government of Kerala vide notification dated 28.10.2003 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1894’, sought to acquire 45.5861 hectares (115.75 acres) lf land for the purpose of KINFRA Export Industrial Park Development. The follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 came to be issued on 15.10.2004. 2. In these two connected writ petitions, bearing Nos.2815 of 2006 and 3149 of 2006, challenge is to land acquisition proceedings for public purpose already indicated above. By this common order, we propose to dispose of both the petitions as not only the challenge is to the same very acquisition proceedings, but also the points canvassed for the setting aside notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act of 1894 are similar. The bare minimum facts that, however need necessary mention have been extracted from W.P.(C).3149 of 2006, as amended during its pendency. Petitioners are some of the owners affected of the notifications mentioned above of the lands situate in Kakkanad Villages, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. A perusal of the notification would reveal that the land has been acquired for development by Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as ‘KINFRA’, which has been arrayed as 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that 2nd respondent has two types of functions, namely, to launch projects and to work as nodal agency for export promotion of export businesses. It is an agency approved by the Ministry of Commerce for the establishment of Special Economic Zones, for short ‘SEZ’. Zones, as SEZ, are places where industrial activities are being carried out for producing commodities exclusively for export use. The 2nd respondent has many projects in Kerala, which include the establishment of a Rubber Park and Bio-technology park in Ernakulam District. Zones, as SEZ, are places where industrial activities are being carried out for producing commodities exclusively for export use. The 2nd respondent has many projects in Kerala, which include the establishment of a Rubber Park and Bio-technology park in Ernakulam District. It has, however, no other projects like establishment of Information Technology Park in Ernakulam District. As a part of Exim Policy, in order to achieve the State’s involvement in export sector, Government of India decided to provide a share of the export earning to each State based on its export performance. The fund so allotted could be utilised by the State Government for creation of infrastructure facilities like new Export Promotion Industrial Parks, Electronic and other related infrastructure, equity participation in Special Economic Zone, EPIPs, EPZs, construction of roads, stabilizing power supply, development of minor ports and jetties and common effluent treatment plants, etc. Each project is being implemented through the Nodal agency of each State nominated by the respective State Government. When the Government of India decided to constitute a State Level Export Promotion Committee (SLEPC), the 2nd respondent, was appointed as the nodal agency. The projects under the 2nd respondent have benefits of Special Economic Zones, wherein there is exemption from customs, excise duty, central sales tax and other taxes as may be available to an industry. It is because of such benefits, Government of India is granting funds to promote the entrepreneurs in the State to produce more export oriented products. The project proponent has to get sanction from the Ministry of Commerce for notifying the area as SEZ. The Ministry of Commerce has published a list of such functional and approved SEZ. It is the case of the petitioners that Exhibit P2 list referred to above does not contain the SEZ, Ernakulam, the purpose for which the land of the petitioners and others was acquired. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have now decided to use the land acquired as per Exhibit P1 by forming an agency called ‘INFOPARK’. Two buildings have been constructed in some of the properties already acquired. Website of the 4th respondent would show that INFOPARK is a project of 1st respondent and it is an autonomous body. It is not stated in the website as to on what basis it is constituted. Two buildings have been constructed in some of the properties already acquired. Website of the 4th respondent would show that INFOPARK is a project of 1st respondent and it is an autonomous body. It is not stated in the website as to on what basis it is constituted. It is not known as to whether it is a company or a trust or a society or creation of statute. It is not stated as to whether it is SEZ. The details available in the website as on today reveals that it is Board of Governor, which includes the officials of the 1st respondent. A copy of the details obtained from website of the 3rd respondent has been placed on record as Exhibit P4. The land of the petitioners and others was notified for acquisition for public purpose, but the same is to be used for the purpose of ‘Dubai Internet City’, for short ‘DIC’ an organization which is unknown to law. The petitioners aver that the 1st respondent has already signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Dubai Internet City. It is further pleaded that if the 1st and 4th respondent wanted to lease out the facilities in the two buildings so far constructed to any person they ought to have invited offers from the general public or by a global tender. The buildings could not be leased out to any person like Dubai Internet City. 3. In W.P.(C).2815 of 2006 the petitioners, in addition to the pleadings as made above, have also averred that the land, subject matter of acquisition, has all modern facilities. The place is without any problem and of all the facilities the KINFRA people have programmed to have the area acquired for expansion of their industrial park. In the year 2003 the land value in that area was rupees 1 to 2 lakhs per cent. The petitioners and other residents in that area were very much disturbed of the decision of the KINFRA to expand the KINFRA Park acquiring the properties of the petitioners also. But, they though that if they were provided with proper compensation and if it is in public interest, let their property be taken without any delay, so that they can use the compensation received for the purchase of other property nearby. In the manner aforesaid, they could resettle in the nearby areas. But, they though that if they were provided with proper compensation and if it is in public interest, let their property be taken without any delay, so that they can use the compensation received for the purchase of other property nearby. In the manner aforesaid, they could resettle in the nearby areas. For that, compensation had to be given to them immediately. Because of the development of the area under acquisition, the nearby area has become far more costly. The market value of the property adjoining the area has increased manifolds. The petitioners and other residents of the area, thus, made a request to the acquisitioning authority and also to KINFRA people that if the property is required, the same may be acquired immediately and compensation be paid to them without delay. It is the case of the petitioners that because of delay in finalization of acquisition proceedings whereas they would be deprived of the lands, but would not be able to make alternate arrangements for them. 4. Normally, at this stage, we would have referred to pleadings made by the respondents in the counter affidavit, but inasmuch as the pleadings are voluminous, it would be more appropriate to state the grounds on which the land acquisition has been called into question and then to make reference to the pleadings made by the respondents in the context thereof. 5. The challenge to land acquisition proceedings was made on the ground that the utilization of the land acquired for the KINFRA Export Industrial Park Development is for creation of SEZ. Such SEZ is intended to promote production of export oriented products in the State. Being a public purpose, majority of the public in the State would get the benefit of development. The transfer of such acquired land to another agency, like INFOPARK, for constructing building and leasing out the same is arbitrary and illegal and also that allotment of buildings constructed in the acquired property to Dubai Internet City is arbitrary as no global tender has been invited by the respondents prior to the allotment. It has also been urged that Government Order dated 30.6.2004 in so far as it accords sanction to form a society by name ‘INFOPARKS KERALA’ under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to a “Act of 1955”, is arbitrary and that INFOPARKS KERALA is not an instrumentality of the State. It has also been urged that Government Order dated 30.6.2004 in so far as it accords sanction to form a society by name ‘INFOPARKS KERALA’ under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to a “Act of 1955”, is arbitrary and that INFOPARKS KERALA is not an instrumentality of the State. If the said society wants to acquire any property, it has to follow the procedure prescribed for acquiring land prescribed separately under the Act. Thus, the transfer of land, if any, to the INFOPARKS KERALA is illegal and arbitrary. The last two ground mentioned above have been added as per order on I.A.No.3097 of 2005 dated 6.3.2006 while amending the writ petition. In W.P.(C).2815 of 2006 the additional ground seeking quashing of notifications under the Act of 1894 is that the petitioners, due to delay in finalizing the land acquisition proceedings, cannot be property compensated. 6. Having referred to the grounds challenging acquisition proceedings, time is now ripe to advert to the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit in contesting the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. In the counter affidavit file on behalf of the 1st respondent, through the affidavit of P. Jayakumar, Joint Secretary, Information Technology Department, it has inter alia been pleaded that KINFRA, the 2nd respondent, was formed by the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructural Development Act, 1993, with the objective of creating industrial infrastructure. KINFRA is also a nodal agency of export promotions and is the agency to administrate funds under the central scheme called ‘AISW’. KINFRA Export Promotion Industrial Park, for short ‘KEPIP’ is a fully owned subsidiary company of KINFRA, KEPIP is located at Kakanadu, Kochi and it was established in the year 1995. The total area in possession of KEPIP was 180 acres. The property of petitioners, which is under acquisition proceedings, would fall under the area of 115 acres of land which was intended to be acquired under Exhibit P1 declaration. From the very beginning, KEPIP included software development in their thrust areas. The infrastructual development plans of KINFRA/KEPIP included creation and development activities of an IT Park at Kakkanad, Kochi along with other non IT units. The averment made by the petitioners that KINFRA was enjoying the benefits of SEZ has been denied. From the very beginning, KEPIP included software development in their thrust areas. The infrastructual development plans of KINFRA/KEPIP included creation and development activities of an IT Park at Kakkanad, Kochi along with other non IT units. The averment made by the petitioners that KINFRA was enjoying the benefits of SEZ has been denied. KINFRA has neither applied for SEZ status, nor has the Government of Kerala recommended to the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India for sanctioning in SEZ status to KEPIP under the relevant statutes of Government of India. The I.T. policy of the Government was formulated in December, 2001. It envisaged that the city of Kochi would be promoted as ICT hub, where facilities offered would match the best available in the world. With a view to achieve the said objective, Government vide order dated 18.9.2003 transferred 80 acres of land belonging to KINFRA, including the assets created by KINFRA therein and ongoing works therein to it Mission for development of the IT Park, namely, INFOPARKS KERALA. In order to accelerate the development of Kochi as a IT hub, Government of Kerala gave sanction to register a Society by name ‘INFOPARKS KERALA’ with the objective of planning, designing and managing the INFOPARK with the 80 acres of land transferred from KINFRA. Accordingly, G.O. dated 30.6.2004 was issued by the Government. The averment made by the petitioners that INFOPARK is a non-existent agency was denied to be incorrect and contrary to facts. Government of Kerala has signed Memorandum of Understanding with Dubai Internet City on 9.9.2005 to jointly develop 300 acres of IT Park, which includes the land under Exhibit P1 acquisition proceedings. There is no need to refer to the pleadings made in the counter affidavit in that regard as after the general elections, the party which has now formed the Government was asked to give its views with regard to involvement of Dubai Internet City and the extent thereof. The learned Advocate General has handed over a communication received by him from the Chief Minister of the State, which would be placed on record. In paragraph 1 of the communication dated 23.6.2006 referred above, it has been mentioned that Government does not intend to sell Infopark to any private individual or agency. The learned Advocate General has handed over a communication received by him from the Chief Minister of the State, which would be placed on record. In paragraph 1 of the communication dated 23.6.2006 referred above, it has been mentioned that Government does not intend to sell Infopark to any private individual or agency. The Government intends to promote and nurture this as a preferred location for IT firms the world over and that at least another 100 acres of land would be acquired for further development. It is also stated that the Government is willing to acquire the land and hand over the same to Dubai Internet City, provided the DIC pays for the land at market prices or at prices normally realized from IT firms and it gives a firm commitment about the number of assured jobs. The land to be handed over by the Government shall be used for IT or ITES only as per the rules as in Infopark and Technopark indicated in the IT policy of the State Government and the Government is not willing to accept any conditions from DIC concerning anything other than what is applicable within the boundaries of the Park. In other words, Government is not willing to even consider the terms related to ‘exclusively’, ‘bar on construction’ etc. and the Government would consider the project and its premises as a private It Park and do everything possible to promote it. Government is willing to explore the possibility of a joint venture with DIC, provided Government gets a fair share proportionate to the infrastructural contributions made. Along with the present writ petitions, some other writ petitions exclusively calling in question the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and DIC were filed on variety of grounds. On receipt of communication from the Chief Minister of the State addressed to the learned Advocate General, the said writ petitions were dismisses as withdrawn vide order dated 30.06.2006. The petitioners in the present cases as well have not urged anything with regard to the acquired property being passed over to DIC. There would be, thus, no need to give any further reference to the pleadings made by the respondents in the counter affidavit in that regard. 7. The petitioners in the present cases as well have not urged anything with regard to the acquired property being passed over to DIC. There would be, thus, no need to give any further reference to the pleadings made by the respondents in the counter affidavit in that regard. 7. It is the case of the 1st respondent that Government of Kerala vide G.O. dated 5.1.2004, marked as Exhibit R1(h), had ordered certain projects to be nominated as Fast Track Projects in Kerala and guidelines have been formulated for accelerating the land acquisition in relation to those projects. The order contains guidelines for accelerating land acquisition in Fast Track Projects (Exhibit R1[ha]). It also contains rehabilitation and re-settlement principles, produced as Exhibit R1[hb]. The said guidelines give ample power to the District Level Purchase Committee to arrive at the value of the land under acquisition after holding negotiations with affected persons and the said proposal of the District Level Purchase Committee would be forwarded to the Empowered committee for approval. 1st respondent issued order dated 23.8.2005 directing the District Collector, Ernakulam to constitute a negotiation committee for acquisition of 136 acres of land including 115 acres already notified by Exhibit P1 and also for acquisition of another 20 acres of land, for which administrative sanction was issued as per Government Order dated 18.12.2004. Subsequently, Government vide order dated 6.10.2005 included the lands intended for utilisation of INFOPARK under the Fast Track Projects specified in Exhibit R1(h). Meanwhile on 13.10.2005, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of 20 acres of land was also issued. In pursuance of the orders mentioned above, the District Collector, Ernakulam constituted a District Level Purchase Committee, for short ‘DLPC’, for negotiations and purchase of land. The DLPC consists of the District Collector as the Chairmen and the CEO, INFOPARK as the Convenor, the Director, Kerala IT Missions, RDO, Finance Officer, Collectorate, Ernakulam and the Deputy Collector (L.A.), Ernakulam as members. The 1st meeting of the DLPC was convened on 18.11.2005 with notice to all the 87 land owners, who are affected by the notifications and 46 of them including 5th petitioner in W.P.(C).3149 of 2006 and the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).2815 of 2006, participated in the meeting. The 1st meeting of the DLPC was convened on 18.11.2005 with notice to all the 87 land owners, who are affected by the notifications and 46 of them including 5th petitioner in W.P.(C).3149 of 2006 and the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).2815 of 2006, participated in the meeting. During the meeting, the District Collector informed the land owners, the prices that are offered for the different categories of lands under acquisition and they were also informed that they could represent their requirement of prices with supporting documents to the DLPC before 23.11.2005. Even though the land owners did not agree for the price offered, none of them had objected to the acquisition proceedings as such. In pursuance to the above negotiations, about 75 land owners submitted their claims with their request for enhancement of price and other benefits and this included petitioners 3, 4 and 5 in W.P.(C).3149 of 2006 and petitioners 1 to 5 in W.P.(C).2815 of 2006. The DLPC again conducted another meeting on 9.1.2006 with notice to all the land owners and it also considered the representation received from them. During the meeting, the land owners were informed that the basic price announced on 18.11.2005 was decided to be enhanced by 100% without any further solatium or interest. In addition to this, they were also informed that those who lose their houses would be given a special package, such as 3 cents of land for construction of a new house, special consideration for getting employment, rent allowance upto a period of six months an without depreciation the present cost of the house would be given on acquisition. On this occasion also, though there was disagreement on the price offered to the land, none of the land owners objected to the acquisition of their land nor the public purpose behind the acquisition was challenged. Petitioners 2, 3 and 5 in W.P.(C).3149 of 2006 and petitioners 1 and 4 in W.P.(C).2815 of 2006 attended the meeting. In this meeting also, the land owners were informed that those who are agreeable to surrender their land shall submit their letters before 16.1.2006 with supporting documents and that the land of those who are not accepting the offer would be acquired under the Act of 1894. In response to the offer made at the meeting held on 9.1.2006, 25 land owners have submitted their consent letters with supporting document. In response to the offer made at the meeting held on 9.1.2006, 25 land owners have submitted their consent letters with supporting document. By that time, considering the public purpose involved in the Smart City Projects and also the urgency involved therein for implementation, Government vide order dated 13.6.2005 had modified the guidelines contained in Exhibit R1(b) Government Order, thereby enabling the acquisitioning authorities in invoke Section 17 of the Act of 1894 and to take advance possession of the land in case the land owners are not willing for a settlement after negotiations. In relation to the land covered by Exhibit P1, Section 4(1) notification has been published in the Gazette dated 28.10.2003 and in various news papers. The last publication of Section 4(1) notification was on 18.11.2003. Immediately after publication of the preliminary notification, a public notice in Form 4(a) was published and served to all the persons interested, stating that the land is needed for the public purpose and the interested persons were required to lodge before the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) a statement of objections, if any, in writing against the proposed acquisition within 30 days of the last date of publication of such preliminary notification or giving of such public notice, whichever is later. Six land owners filed their objections before the officer within the stipulated time. None of the petitioners in these two writ petitions had lodged their objections before the appropriate authorities in accordance with the request made by the authorities. Form 4(c) notice had been issued to those who filed objections to attend the enquiry under Section 5A on 19.12.2003 with supportive documents an evidence, if any. The enquiry was conducted in the presence of the original Requisitioning Authority. The enquiry report was sent to the Land Revenue Commissioner through the District Collector, Ernakulam and the Land Revenue Commissioner as per proceedings dated 12.10.2004 had rejected the objections. The draft declaration in relation to Exhibit P1 was published on 25.10.2004 and the Basic Valuation Report was approved by the District Collector, Ernakulam on 31.3.2005. Out of the 140 land acquisition files originated from the properties covered in Exhibits P1, 84 Detailed Valuation Statement were prepared and sent to District Collector, Ernakulam for approval. Out of the 84, 79 were approved and award enquiry was conducted in 76 land acquisition files. In another three files, award enquiry was to be conducted on 6.3.2006. Out of the 140 land acquisition files originated from the properties covered in Exhibits P1, 84 Detailed Valuation Statement were prepared and sent to District Collector, Ernakulam for approval. Out of the 84, 79 were approved and award enquiry was conducted in 76 land acquisition files. In another three files, award enquiry was to be conducted on 6.3.2006. The land acquisition cost in connection with all these acquisitions would be met by INFOPARK. The land of the petitioners was also included in the 115 acres of land covered by Exhibit P1. It is at this stage that the present writ petition was filed by five land owners without adverting to the true facts, but taking all the efforts to mislead the Court with distorted versions. It is averred that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition as none of their legal rights, much less any of the fundamental rights, were violated by the acquisition proceedings. 8. It is further the case of the respondents that Exhibit P1 notification was issued proposing to acquire about 115.75 acres of land which was later on ordered to be taken over and continued by the 4th respondent. Even though Exhibit P1 was issued with the 2nd respondent as the requisitioning authority, the land was meant to be utilised by KEPIP, a subsidiary company of 2nd respondent, KINFRA, and, therefore, in so far as the issue raised in the writ petition is concerned, the 2nd respondent is an unnecessary party. In so far as the establishment of SEZ is concerned, the respondents submit that any applicant satisfying the criteria laid down in the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and the Rules framed thereunder is eligible for the same. The 2nd respondent has various projects in the State. Even prior to the allotment to INFOPARK, the land was earmarked for IT related industries and it is this land which was later transferred to this respondent pursuant to Government Order dated 10.5.2005 and it is his objective that is being continued by the 1st respondent. It is for the same purpose and for expanding the park and thereby increasing exports and employment avenues that the whole Smart City Project is conceived and implemented with the active participation of the Government of Kerala. It is for the same purpose and for expanding the park and thereby increasing exports and employment avenues that the whole Smart City Project is conceived and implemented with the active participation of the Government of Kerala. The statement made in the petition that the projects under the 2nd respondent have the benefit of SEZ was denied. The two buildings mentioned by the petitioners are Thapasya, which was converted by the 4th respondent as an IT building ad Vizmaya, the construction of which was commenced by KEPIP and completed by the 4th respondent. The purpose of earmarking a portion of the KEPIP land for IT related purposes and by transfer of the land and taking over the same by the 4th respondent, the same very purpose is being pursued further. The averment made by the petitioners that the acquisition of land by Exhibit P1 is for the purpose of establishing SEZ has been denied. 9. The 4th respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. There is, however, no need at all to give details thereof as the case of the petitioners has been contested by the 4th respondent as well for similar grounds as taken by the 1st respondent. 10. The 1st respondent has filed an additional affidavit consequent upon the amendment of the writ petition, wherein it has been averred that Exhibit R1(b) Government Order dated 30.6.2004 was issued by the Government by exercising its executive power conferred on it by the Constitution of India. The allegation that INFOPARKS KERALA has been constituted by Sri. P.K. Kunhalikutty and seven others as members of the Society is misleading and not substantiated by facts. The name of Sri. P.K. Kunhalikutty happened to be there in Exhibit R1(d) for the reason that at the time of incorporation of INFOPARKS KERALA, the 4th respondent, he was the Minister for Industries and Information Technology and it was in that capacity he held the office of the Chairman of the Society. On account of the subsequent changes, the Chief Minister of Kerala is the Chairman of the Society at present and the persons who formed the General Body and the Board of Governors have also changed on account of the changes that had taken place in the respective offices specified in the rules and regulations of the society. On account of the subsequent changes, the Chief Minister of Kerala is the Chairman of the Society at present and the persons who formed the General Body and the Board of Governors have also changed on account of the changes that had taken place in the respective offices specified in the rules and regulations of the society. Mere assertion of the petitioners that the 4th respondent is a private enterprise in which the Government have no interest, would not help the petitioners in any manner, when the facts are otherwise. Moreover, in the Government sector several societies have been incorporated both at the Center and also in the State for various purposes. There was nothing unusual in Exhibit R1(b) or in the formation of the Society, INFOPARKS KERALA, and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the same is unconstitutional would not stand in the ye of law. Regarding the averments in Ground ‘C’, it is the case of the 1st respondent that there is nothing unconstitutional or arbitrary in issuing Exhibit R1(b) dated 30.6.2004, according sanction to form the 4th respondent Society. The Government is free and competent to form a society to discharge its obligations and duties. As regards Ground ‘D’, it is the case of the 1st respondent that apart from the categorical assertion made by the petitioners based on incorrect facts, there was no legal impediment in continuing with the land acquisition proceedings initiated in this case based on Exhibit P1 declaration. The same very purpose which has been prevailing at the time of Exhibit P1 declaration remains even now and none of the petitioners have raised objections relating to the public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired. The challenge on this ground is made only with oblique motives, mainly to thwart the SMART CITY project as such. 11. The 4th respondent also filed an additional affidavit after the amendment of the writ petition. Once again it is not at all necessary to make reference to the pleadings made in the additional affidavit as the stand taken by the 4th respondent is the similar to the one taken by the 1st respondent in the additional affidavit. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the records of the case. 13. Once again it is not at all necessary to make reference to the pleadings made in the additional affidavit as the stand taken by the 4th respondent is the similar to the one taken by the 1st respondent in the additional affidavit. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the records of the case. 13. Learned counsel representing the petitioners in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and developments that had taken place during the pendency of the writ petition and in particular the change in the stand of the Government with regard to transfer and lease of property to Dubai Internet City, had not raised any contention based upon Grounds ‘A’ and ‘B’ in W.P.(C).No.3149 of 2006 pertaining to utilisation of land for the KEPIP or SEZ and the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at with Dubai Internet city. 14. The two grounds incorporated as Grounds ‘C’ and ‘D’ in the petition, it may be recalled, were raised after receipt of counter affidavits by moving I.A.No.3097 of 2005 by amendment of the writ petition. The challenge is to the validity of the Government Order, G.O.(Ms).No.17/2004/ITD dated 30.6.2004, issued by the Information Technology Department according sanction for registration of the Society by name ‘INFOPARKS KERALA’ (Exhibit R4[a]) and the Certificate of Registration dated 30.6.2004 (Exhibit R4[b]) issued by the Sub Registrar under the Act of 1955. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Government for the formation of the Society is unconstitutional and arbitrary as the Government cannot delegate its power to a Society registered under the Act of 1955. The 4th respondent, INFOPARKS KERALA, is not an instrumentality of the State and is only a private agency. It is further urged that for forming a Society under the Act of 1955, there had to be at least seven persons, as would be made out from Section 3 of the Act of 1955, which reads as follows:- “3. Societies formed by memorandum of association and registration:- Any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 32 of this Act, may be subscribing, their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar, form themselves into a society under this Act”. Societies formed by memorandum of association and registration:- Any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 32 of this Act, may be subscribing, their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar, form themselves into a society under this Act”. In view of the provisions contained in Section 3, there have to be at least seven ‘person’ to form a society under the Act of 1955. Government cannot be termed as a ‘person and if that be so, the constitution of the society is illegal and, therefore, the Government would not be competent to transfer properties, subject matter of acquisition, to an illegally constituted society. In their endeavour to fortify the contention aforesaid, it is urged that the Act of 1955 does not define the term ‘person’. The word ‘person’ may include a natural person and an artificial person. As per Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, ‘person’ shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The definition does not contain the term ‘Government’ and, therefore, a Government cannot be termed as ‘individual, body corporate’ or ‘association’. There is no law in the country which defines the word ‘person’ including ‘Government’, further contend the learned counsel. In support of the contention noted above, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Zaria Nazim v. Athar (AIR 1957 A.P. 714). 15. Learned counsel representing the petitioners further contend that if the intention of the Government was to develop an I.T. or any other industry, the 2nd respondent could have continued the proceedings under the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993. The main object of the said Act was establishment of industrial area and for the organization of Industrial Growth Centres in the State of Kerala. By virtue of provisions of Section 3 of the Act aforesaid, Government can declare an industrial area whereas, as per Section 4 thereof there could be an establishment and incorporation of the Corporation. The functions contemplated under Section 9 of the Act are wide enough to do as to what is contemplated in the main objects of the memorandum of association of the Society, INFOPARKS KERALA. The functions contemplated under Section 9 of the Act are wide enough to do as to what is contemplated in the main objects of the memorandum of association of the Society, INFOPARKS KERALA. If the intention of the Government is to privatize the functions, which can be done under Section 9 of the Act aforesaid, they can do it. But if the legislation does not empower the Government to constitute a society by inducting the Minister, Government Secretaries and other Government servants as members, they cannot do it. The Constitution does not permit such action by the Government. The Government cannot privatize their functions as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 3277). Therefore, if the 1st respondent wanted to develop industries including I.T., they can do it by invoking the provisions of Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993 but the said functions given under the namely the 4th respondent and, therefore, the transferring of the acquisition made for the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent is arbitrary, further contends the counsel. INFOPARKS KERALA is not an instrumentality of the State. If the said Society wants to acquire any property, they have to follow the procedure prescribed for acquiring land prescribed separately under the Act and, therefore, the transfer of land to INFOPARKS KERALA is illegal and arbitrary. It is then contended that the delay in finalising the acquisition proceedings has resulted into irreparable loss and because of escalation in prices of the lands in the adjoining area, the petitioners would not be able to purchase land by the compensation that they might receive on account of acquisition of their lands. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel as noted above. But in the context of facts of the present case, we find no merit therein whatsoever. Before we might, however, deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as noted above, we would like to mention that even though at this stage when compensation for the acquired land has not been paid to the petitioners nor have they been dispossessed and, therefore, technically speaking challenge to acquisition proceedings may be permissible, the petitioners, in the facts ad circumstances of the case, would not be entitled or justified to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this stage. 17. The land owned by the petitioners and others was notified for KINFRA Export Industrial park Development under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 28.10.2003. The petitioner and others own land which was covered by Exhibit P1 measuring 115.75 acres of land. No urgency provisions were invoked. A public notice in form 4(a) was published and served to all persons interested, stating that the land was needed for public purpose and the interested persons were required to lodge their objections, if any, in writing before the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) against the proposed acquisition within 30 days. It is conceded that petitioners filed no objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Some of the land owners, however, responded to the notice under Form 4(c) and filed objections under Section 5A on 19.12.2003 with supportive documents. The enquiry was conducted in the presence of requisitioning authority. The objections were rejected on 12.10.2004 and declaration under Section 6 (Exhibit P1) was published on 25.10.2004. Out of the 140 land acquisition files that originated from the properties covered in Exhibit P1, 84 Detailed Valuation Statement were prepared and sent a District Collector for approval. Out of the 84, 79 were approved and award enquiry was conducted in 76 land acquisition files. On number of occasions when the meetings were conducted for fixation of value of the land, majority of the petitioners in both the petitions participated and did not raise objections whatsoever with regard to acquisition proceedings. Their objections were exclusively on fixation of proper compensation. In W.P.(C).2815 of 2006 it is case of petitioners themselves that they were rather interested in acquisition of land as it was for a public purpose. It is only the delay in finalisation of the acquisition proceedings that irked them and the acquisition of land as such was never objected to by them. In fact it was agreed and consented to by the petitioners. It appears that it is only when the Government arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding with Dubai Internet City, the petitioners thought of challenging the land acquisition proceedings. In fact it was agreed and consented to by the petitioners. It appears that it is only when the Government arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding with Dubai Internet City, the petitioners thought of challenging the land acquisition proceedings. By that time, however, land acquisition proceedings had almost come to an end and but for the present writs and those writs, reference of which have been given above, challenging transfer of the acquired land by lease or otherwise to Dubai Internet City, the land acquisition proceedings would have come to an end by now. It may also be recalled at this stage that meanwhile two major buildings had been constructed on the land subject matter of acquisition. Most of the land owners are satisfied with the acquisition proceedings and ‘they are only clamouring for higher compensation. In our considered view, in view of these overwhelming circumstances as noted above, the petitioners would not be entitled to challenge the land acquisition proceedings at this stage. 18. The Court may deal with the contention raised in W.P.(C).2815 of 2006 at this stage with regard to delay in finalisation of the land acquisition proceedings which, according to them, resulted into irreparable loss inasmuch as with the compensation that would be received on acquisition of their land they would not be able to buy alternative land for their settlement. The legislature in its wisdom has laid upper time limits for completing the land acquisition proceedings. No declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 can be made after expiry of one year from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) as envisaged under Clause (ii) of first proviso to Section 6(1), which reads as follows:- “PROVIDED that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),- (i) ……………………………………… (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification”. The award by the Collector has to be made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition would lapse. Section 11A of the Act of 1894, in so far as it is relevant, prescribing period of limitation for finalising the acquisition proceedings reads thus: “11A. Section 11A of the Act of 1894, in so far as it is relevant, prescribing period of limitation for finalising the acquisition proceedings reads thus: “11A. Period within which an award shall be made- The collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: PROVIDED that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement”. Once the upper limit for finalising acquisition proceedings has been fixed by the statute itself, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that the delay in finalising the proceedings would cause irreparable loss to them. The legislature has thought upper limit of three years, whereafter only the increase in prices in land may adversely affect a citizen to such an extent that further continuation of land acquisition proceedings would be unjustified. Surely, in the present case, a period of three years has not lapsed from the date of notification under Section 4(1) was issued. That apart, unless there is any material to show that the prices of adjoining lands have escalated so much that the petitioners could not be able to make alternative arrangements, no finding can be returned with regard to loss suffered by the petitioners. No material at all has been placed on records which may even remotely suggest that there has been escalation in the prices of adjoining lands as sought to be made out by the petitioners. 19. Having held that the petitioners would not be entitled to challenge the land acquisition proceedings at this stage, there appears no need to adjudicate upon the contention of the learned counsel noted above referable to Grounds ‘C’ and ‘D’ in W.P.(C).3149 of 2006. However, once we have heard the arguments, it would be appropriate to deal and determine the said contentions as well. 20. The chronological events reveal that the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1993’, came into force on 1.11.1992. By virtue of the provisions contained in the Act of 1993, the Government has established a Corporation by name ‘Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA). 20. The chronological events reveal that the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1993’, came into force on 1.11.1992. By virtue of the provisions contained in the Act of 1993, the Government has established a Corporation by name ‘Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA). Section 4 of the Act of 1993 dealing with establishment and incorporation reads as follows:- “4. Establishment and incorporation.- (1) For the purposes of securing and assisting the rapid and orderly establishment and organisation of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State and for the purpose of establishing growth centres and infrastructure facilities in connection with the establishment and organisation of such industries, there shall be established by the Government, by notification in the gazette, a Corporation by name the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation. (2) The Corporation shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall, by the said name, sue and be sued and shall be competent, to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to enter into contracts and to do all things necessary and expedient for the purposes of this Act”. A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1993 shows that KINFRA is a body corporate with perpetual succession. It can acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and enter into contracts and do all things necessary and expedient for the purposes of the said Act. KINFRA incorporated KINFRA Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd., (KEPIP), Cochin as a subsidiary company to which 180 acres of KINFRA land was transferred for establishing an industrial park, out of which 80 acres of land was earmarked for setting up an IT Park. On 8.8.2002, it was decided to set up an I.T. Park at KEPIP, Kakkanad. In 2001, Government of Kerala declared its I.T. policy stating inter alia that Kochi would be promoted as an I.T. hub with facilities of world standards. By G.O. dated 18.09.2003 (Exhibit R1[a]), 80 acres of KEPIP land was ordered to be transferred to Kerala State I.T. Mission, a Society incorporated by the Government of Kerala for implementing, marketing and management of I.T. Park, Kochi. By Government Order dated 30.6.2004 (Exhibit R4[a]), sanction was accorded for incorporation of INFOPARKS KERALA under the Act of 1955. By G.O. dated 18.09.2003 (Exhibit R1[a]), 80 acres of KEPIP land was ordered to be transferred to Kerala State I.T. Mission, a Society incorporated by the Government of Kerala for implementing, marketing and management of I.T. Park, Kochi. By Government Order dated 30.6.2004 (Exhibit R4[a]), sanction was accorded for incorporation of INFOPARKS KERALA under the Act of 1955. INFOPARKS KERALA was incorporated, as evidenced by certificate Exhibit R4(b), dated 27.10.2004. All the promoters by virtue of the bye-laws are Government officials and the Minister for Industries as its Chairman. By order Exhibit R4(c) dated 10.5.2005, Government transferred 91.90 aces of land, including 80 acres taken over by I.T. Mission. It was also ordered that acquisition of land initiated for KEPIP would be taken over by INFOPARKS KERALA. The contention raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioners that Government of Kerala is not competent to incorporate a Society under the Act of 1955 is exclusively based upon the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1955, which provide that seven or more ‘persons’ may by subscribing their name to a Memorandum of Association and filing the same with the Registrar, form themselves into a Society under the Act. It is urged that the seven persons, called ‘Board of Governors’, include Government officials and the Government cannot be a person. The expression ‘person’ has not been defined in the Act of 1993 or the Act of 1955. Unless there is anything repugnant in the context, the Court can always rely upon words, expressions and definitions given in the General Clauses Act, 1897. The expression ‘person’ has been defined in Clause 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, to include ‘any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not’. If ‘person’ includes company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, it cannot be given a restricted meaning. The body of individuals, be it a Company, Municipality, District Board or the like is a ‘body of individuals’ and thus it is covered within the definition of ‘person’ in the General Clauses Act. The Government is also a body of individuals and cannot be excluded from the expression of ‘person’. The body of individuals, be it a Company, Municipality, District Board or the like is a ‘body of individuals’ and thus it is covered within the definition of ‘person’ in the General Clauses Act. The Government is also a body of individuals and cannot be excluded from the expression of ‘person’. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kanhaiya Lal (AIR 1956 Allahabad 383) held as follows: “The word “person” is not defined in the Indian Contract Act, and unless there is anything repugnanent in the context will by virtue of S.3(39), General Clauses Act, include “any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.” I do not see any reason why the word “person” should be given a restricted meaning. The greater part of modern industry and commerce is founded on contract, and unincorporated bodies habitually enter into contracts. I do not think it can be doubted that a District Board or a Municipality is a ‘body of individuals’ within the definition of person in the General Clauses Act, and logically I see no sufficient reason for excluding from the ambit of the definition the body of individuals, “the Government”, responsible for the governance of a State”. The subscribers to the Memorandum constitute a Board of Governors, which includes officials of the Government of Kerala, such a Secretary IT Department (Chairman), Secretary Finance (Expenditure), Managing Director (KSIDC), District Collector, Ernakulam Director, Kerala State IT Mission, Managing Director of KINFRA, Managing Director of KITCO and Chief Executive Officer, INFOPARKS KERALA. The Chief Minister of the State, who is also the Minister for Information Technology, is the Chairman of the General Body of INFOPARKS KERALA. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the very constitution of the Society, INFOPARKS KERALA, is illegal does not appears to be correct. The decision in Zaria Nazim’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not support the case of the petitioners. It would be seen that the issue involved therein was as to whether officers of a Government department is a person. The brief facts of the case would reveal that procedure was laid down for giving notice to the Government servant with respect to the acts purporting to be done in his official capacity. It would be seen that the issue involved therein was as to whether officers of a Government department is a person. The brief facts of the case would reveal that procedure was laid down for giving notice to the Government servant with respect to the acts purporting to be done in his official capacity. The Division Bench only held that on a reading of Section 2(43) of the General Clauses Act, the officer or the Government department would not be a person not only because it was not included in the said definition, but because it was neither a natural person nor an artificial person nor a legal person. It was further held in the context of Sections 439, 441 and 442 of Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code that a Government servant to which a reference was made therein, was the natural person. The plaintiff in the case aforesaid alleged that his malgi was taken possession of after breaking the lock on behalf of the Department of Endowments of H.E.H., the Nizam’s Government. He filed a suit for possession and damages against the Director of Endowments and it was contended that the suit as framed could not lie and ought to have been dismissed on the ground that if it was a suit against the Government servant for acts done in his official capacity requiring service of notice under Section 439 the person occupying the office of Director of Endowments should have been sued and not the Director of Endowments and/or if the suit was against the Government Servant, permission should have been sought. All what was held was that the suit as framed against the Director of Endowments could not be competent. The facts of the case in Zaria Nazim’s case (supra) have no parity with the issue involved in the present case. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 3277) is entirely distinguishable as not at all applicable to the facts of this case. 21. The discussion on constitution in INFOPARK KERALA and conclusion arrived at by us above apart, it could be seen that by virtue of Section 4 of the Act of 1894 the Government may acquire land for public purpose for a Company as well. 21. The discussion on constitution in INFOPARK KERALA and conclusion arrived at by us above apart, it could be seen that by virtue of Section 4 of the Act of 1894 the Government may acquire land for public purpose for a Company as well. ‘Company’ has been defined in Section 3(e) of the Act of 1894 also to mean, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, other than a society referred to in clause (cc). As INFOPARKS KERALA would be a Society registered under the Act of 1955, the Government could well acquire property for the said Society as well. 22. Even though at this stage no arguments have been made with regard to the change of purpose of the land for which it was acquired, we may, however, hasten to add that out of 180 acres of land acquired by KEPIP, 80 acres was earmarked for developing an IT Park by Keep and by order Exhibit R1(a), the said 80 acres of land was allotted to IT Mission with responsibility for implementation, marketing and management of the IT Park and by Exhibit R4(a), sanction was accorded for incorporation of INFOPARKS KERALA for further development and effective marketing of the Park domestically and internationally. Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued for the purpose of KINFRA Export Industrial Park Development and, therefore, no change of public purpose has thus been even envisaged. 23. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that establishment of IT Parks/Smart City is a dream project of State, to be established in an area covering 1000 acres. Smart City would be self contained city of every facilities and would become a global attraction. No one would entertain any doubt that projects, such as IT Parks, are bound to boost the financial position of the Government, which is otherwise stated to be starred of, which would also provide numerous job opportunities to the people of the State, most of whom are educated, but a substantial number of them are without any employment. In such a scenario, the points urged by the petitioners with regard to constitution of INFOPARK KERALA does not need any serious thought nor constitution of INFOPARKS KERALA, even if not proper, can, however, affect the rights of the petitioners. In such a scenario, the points urged by the petitioners with regard to constitution of INFOPARK KERALA does not need any serious thought nor constitution of INFOPARKS KERALA, even if not proper, can, however, affect the rights of the petitioners. There is no merit in these writ petitions and, therefore, the same are dismissed leaving, however, the parties to bear their costs.