JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. The Government of Kerala identified lands in Resurvey Nos. 281, 282, 283 of Block No. 22, Erumeli South Village, Kanjirappally Taluk and Survey No. 299 of Block No. 21, Manimala Village, Kanjirappally Taluk, having an extent of 2263.18 Acres for setting up of new Greenfield Airport at Sabarimala. 2. The aforesaid land originally was part of the estate of M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Plantations Ltd. This estate is popularly known as Cheruvally Estate. By change of hands, the aforesaid estate stands in the name of Ayana Charitable Trust, the first petitioner herein of which the second petitioner is the chief functionary. 3. The Government initiated land conservancy proceedings against the estate held by the Harrisons Malayalam Plantations Ltd. A Division Bench of this Court in a reported judgment in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369 in a challenge made by Harrisons Malayalam Limited including the first petitioner-Trust found that the proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KLC Act) is without any jurisdiction. The Division Bench was of the view that disputed question of title which was raised in the land conservancy proceedings cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the KLC Act. This was taking note of the long-settled possession of Harrisons Malayalam and its assignees over the land. The Division Bench was of the view that all the questions related to the title and interest of the land can be decided if the State institute a civil suit for recovery. The Division Bench also observed that since the State asserts title over the land, it is for the State to file such a suit. The Division Bench also found that dispute on title raised by the writ petitioners in a challenge to the proceedings under the KLC Act was a bona fide dispute. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government was also dismissed by the Apex Court. 4. The State Government in the wake of the dismissal of their Special Leave Petition and the observations made by the Division Bench (supra) instituted a civil suit before the Sub Court, Pala, The civil suit was numbered as O.S. No. 72/2019. The suit was for a declaration of title of the State, recovery of possession and to realize Rs. 5 crores per year as damages. The suit was for a declaration of title of the State, recovery of possession and to realize Rs. 5 crores per year as damages. The suit property covers the property sought to be acquired from the petitioners invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, LARR Act, 2013). 5. It is in the background of the litigative history relating to the land as above, this writ petition was laid to challenge the decision of the Government. The State Government, by its order, G.O. (Ms) No. 158/2020/RD, dated 18.6.2020, directed the District Collector, Kottayam, to initiate acquisition of land by invoking the provisions in the LARR Act, 2013. While deciding to acquire the land as above, in the order the Government directed that the Collector shall deposit the entire compensation before the Hon'ble Court having jurisdiction over the area as per Section 77(2) of LARR Act, 2013. This is because of the fact that there exists a dispute on the title of the property and also in the light of the suit filed by the Government before the civil court. 6. This matter was heard at length through videoconferencing on the request made by the counsel for both the parties, namely, the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K.V. Viswanathan (assisted by Shri Cherian Geevarughese, Shri P. Haridas, Shri Biju Hariharan, Shri R.B. Balachandran, Shri Renji George Cherian, Shri Shijimol Mathew, Shri P.C. Shijin, Shri Rishikesh Haridas, for the petitioners; Shri Jaideep Gupta assisted by Shri Mohammed Anzar K.J. Special Government Pleader (Revenue), and learned Senior Government Pleaders Shri P. Narayanan, Shri V. Manu for the State; Shri K.P.Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Millu Dandapani, Shri Roy Thomas and Shri Rameez Nooh appearing for the additional respondent No. 4; Shri R. Krishna Raj, R. Pratheesh, Shri. E.S. Soni, Smt.Kumari Sangeetha S.Nair for additional respondent No. 5 and Shri V. Sethunath and Shri Manoranjan V.R. appearing for additional respondent No. 6 and Shri V. Sajith Kumar, Shri Vivek A.V. and Shri Godwin Joseph and Smt. Aparna Chandran learned counsel appearing for the additional respondent No. 7. 7. The learned Senior Counsel Shri K.V. Vishwanathan appearing for the petitioners as instructed by Shri P. Haridas challenged the proposed land acquisition proceedings essentially on three grounds. 7. The learned Senior Counsel Shri K.V. Vishwanathan appearing for the petitioners as instructed by Shri P. Haridas challenged the proposed land acquisition proceedings essentially on three grounds. Though several points have been raised supplementing these main grounds, I am referring to the three grounds alone here. The first ground was that the Government could not invoke the power of eminent domain to acquire land which the Government claim that belonged to them; the second ground was that the Government could not have dictated the Collector to deposit compensation amount before an authority under Section 77(2) of the LARR Act, 2013 and third, pointing out fraud on power, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the Government having failed in past litigation resorted to the land acquisition proceedings to acquire the land depriving legitimate compensation due to the petitioners. 8. The learned Senior Counsel engaged by the State Government, Shri Jaideep Gupta in response to the arguments raised by Shri K.V. Vishwanathan submitted that the writ petition is premature for the reason that any concrete decision for the acquisition of land would be taken by the Collector only after procedures followed after notification under Section 4 of LARR Act, 2013 is completed. It was submitted that the acquisition of land would depend upon many parameters as referred to in the statutory provisions. It was further argued that the land acquisition enactment 2013 is a complete Code itself and grievances raised by the petitioners in the writ petition can be addressed through the procedures contemplated under the LARR Act, 2013. It was pointed out that the Government ordered the deposit of the compensation for the obvious reason that the title belonged to the Government and if the Government failed to advert to its own claim, that would deprive the Government from raising such claim in the proceedings for acquisition. It is argued that the Collector can investigate into the nature of interest the petitioners is having over the land and decide at the appropriate stage as to the compensation payable. It was submitted that the Government cannot acknowledge the interest or title claimed by the petitioners, and therefore, the Government directed the District Collector to deposit any compensation payable before the authority. The learned counsel submitted that preliminary administrative sanction accorded to the District Collector is not justiciable for judicial review before this Court. 9. It was submitted that the Government cannot acknowledge the interest or title claimed by the petitioners, and therefore, the Government directed the District Collector to deposit any compensation payable before the authority. The learned counsel submitted that preliminary administrative sanction accorded to the District Collector is not justiciable for judicial review before this Court. 9. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri K.P. Dandapani appearing for the third party, who got impleaded in the proceedings as an additional fourth respondent submitted that the first petitioner-Trust is misutilising the funds of the acquired land. It was pointed out that the Trust is involved in financial malpractices and fraud. It was argued that the State officials and petitioners are colluding in the guise of proceedings for land acquisition. It is submitted that no right or interest enure to the petitioners by the alleged purchase made by them from the predecessor-in-interest. 10. Similar arguments have been raised by learned counsel Shri R. Krishnaraj and Shri V. Sethunath. It is submitted that the State Government is playing fraud on the public and attempting to pay compensation to the petitioners who have no title over the land. Shri V. Sajith Kumar learned counsel appearing for the additional respondent No. 7 submitted that the entire property in Manimala Village belonged to Malayara Tribal Community. It is submitted that the land belonged to Tribals were illegally acquired by Englishmen playing fraud on them. 11. Though several precedents have been cited at the Bar, I need not go into the several issues raised in this matter for the simple reason that the decision which is impugned before this Court is a preliminary decision of the Government to acquire the land for Green-field Airport Project. Unlike the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the acquisition of the land under the LARR Act, 2013 depends upon several factors. These factors are enumerated in Chapter II and Chapter III of LARR Act, 2013. The Government is bound to conduct an investigation on social impact. The social impact study includes an assessment related to the public purpose of the proposed acquisition. An expert group constituted under Section 7(1) of Chapter II has to give an opinion that the project will serve public purpose or not. Thereafter, the Government has to examine expert opinion to arrive at a final decision as to the bona fide public purpose of the project. An expert group constituted under Section 7(1) of Chapter II has to give an opinion that the project will serve public purpose or not. Thereafter, the Government has to examine expert opinion to arrive at a final decision as to the bona fide public purpose of the project. It is only after this, the Government is empowered to issue publication of preliminary notification as contemplated under Section 11 of Chapter IV. 12. The judicial review of a preliminary decision of the Government would be more of an academic exercise on answering certain issues which may have a fundamental bearing if ultimately the Government drop the acquisition after following the procedures as referable from Section 4 to 10. After indicating this by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K.V. Viswanathan appearing for the petitioners submitted before this Court during the last hearing that if the petitioners are not allowed to challenge the decision directing the Collector to deposit compensation amount before the authority under Section 77(2) of LARR Act 2013, that will amount to 'acquiescence' to lay a challenge subsequently. It was also pointed out that this would also have an adverse impact if left without challenge in the ongoing civil suit. 13. The learned Senior counsel Shri K.V. Vishwanathan also submitted that while retaining his challenge as to the impugned order to the extent directing the Collector depositing the entire compensation amount before the authority under Section 77(2) of LARR Act, 2013 the petitioners may be given liberty to challenge the decision of the Government to acquire the land at an appropriate stage on the grounds urged and available in future. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, Shri Jaideep Gupta reiterated before this Court that the Collector is bound to examine and investigate the extent of the interest of the petitioners in the land under the LARR Act, 2013. However, he points out that the Government cannot overlook their claim while taking a decision, otherwise the Government would be precluded from claiming such interest, title etc. when proceedings are initiated under the LARR Act, 2013. 15. The land acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013 commences when the Government initiate steps under Section 4(1) of Chapter II. LARR Act, 2013 is unique in itself as the same provides machineries and platform to address all issues related to land acquisition, including the one related to public purpose. when proceedings are initiated under the LARR Act, 2013. 15. The land acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013 commences when the Government initiate steps under Section 4(1) of Chapter II. LARR Act, 2013 is unique in itself as the same provides machineries and platform to address all issues related to land acquisition, including the one related to public purpose. I am in complete agreement with the argument of the Senior Counsel Shri Jaideep Gupta appearing for the State that LARR Act, 2013 is a self-contained Code, capable of addressing all issues related to land acquisition. The present decision under challenge is not the one that could be treated as a decision as referable under Section 4(1) of Chapter II. Perhaps, this decision is a prelude to the decision to be taken by the Government under Section 4(1). The Government has to start with a notification under Section 4(1) in consultation with the local authority and has to carry out social impact assessment as referable under the notification. Therefore, this Court has to treat this decision as an intention to take steps to initiate a notification under Section 4(1). In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that any exercise addressing the issues or the points raised referable to the Statute would be futile and more an academic exercise. However, the Court cannot be oblivious as to the direction in the decision directing the Collector to deposit the amount before the authority under Section 77(2) of LARR Act, 2013. At this juncture, it is not necessary for the Government to refer to the title or interest of the holder of the land. The Government has no power or authority to dictate that the proceedings under the LARR Act, 2013 should be in a particular manner. What is to be considered at this stage is whether the Government intends to proceed under the LARR Act, 2013 or not and then leave matters for the machineries to act under the LARR Act, 2013. May be in a peculiar case like this, a reference can be made as to the claim of the Government but not in a way to regulate the scheme of LARR Act, 2013 to uphold their claim. 16. This Court need not entertain a challenge at this stage based on the apprehensive infringement of the rights as referable to the provisions under the LARR Act, 2013. 16. This Court need not entertain a challenge at this stage based on the apprehensive infringement of the rights as referable to the provisions under the LARR Act, 2013. That would be available to the petitioners only at the stage when steps are initiated under the LARR Act, 2013. However, at the same time, the Court is of the opinion that the Executive has overstepped in its decision encroaching upon Parliamentary wisdom regulating the process and procedure for land acquisition. LARR Act stamped the Collector with imprimatur to decide on questions relating to title, interest etc. that cannot be grabbed by the Government in the guise of taking a decision to initiate land acquisition. If the decision of the Government is not interfered now, it would deflect the very procedure enshrined under the LARR Act, 2013. The State Government has no power to regulate the procedure under the LARR Act. The State can decide whether they should invoke the LARR Act, 2013 or not. If the State decides to invoke the LARR Act, 2013 then it should leave the rest of the procedures to be managed through the machineries provided under the Act. Therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside to the extent of directing the Collector to deposit the amount of compensation in the authority to which a reference under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 would be submitted. 17. The principles relating to eminent domain would come into play when there is an acquisition initiated under the LARR Act, 2013. The question, therefore, whether the Government can invoke its sovereign power of eminent domain does not arise when there is no process initiated under the LARR Act, 2013. The intention of the Government to acquire the land would commence only under Section 4(1) and finally culminate with the notification under Section 11 under Chapter IV. It is open for the Government or the District Collector even to drop the proposal for acquisition. The expert committee, as well as the Government, will have to finally decide the project would sub-serve public purpose or not. These would depend upon the social impact study assessment submitted by the Expert Committee. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion liberty can be reserved for the petitioners to challenge the proceedings at an appropriate stage after initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. 18. These would depend upon the social impact study assessment submitted by the Expert Committee. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion liberty can be reserved for the petitioners to challenge the proceedings at an appropriate stage after initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. 18. As already observed, the Government may have a claim over the property. There is no dispute on the proposition that the Government cannot acquire its own land. The very reason for acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013 is to acquire land without the consent of the holder of the land, the question whether the Government can acquire the land, over which it asserted right or interest can be postponed to be decided to a stage when the Government initiates the land acquisition proceedings invoking LARR Act, 2013. 19. The challenge based on the ground of fraud on power, intertwined with the question, objective of land acquisition relatable to public purpose. The expert-group is the appellate authority to form an opinion on the question whether the project will sub-serve any public purpose or not. If this Court enters any opinion at this stage based on the ground of fraud on power, that will render the opinion of the expert group as redundant. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that question can also be left open. 20. In the light of the discussions as above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent setting aside the directions in the impugned decision of the Government produced as Ext.P27 directing the Collector to deposit the compensation amount before the authority referred under Section 77(2) of the LARR Act, 2013. Rest of the grounds urged challenging land acquisition are left open. No costs.