KLW‎ > ‎Volume 41‎ > ‎

(2015) 413 KLW 690 - Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala [Land Acquisition]

Google+ Facebook Twitter Email PrintFriendly Addthis

Contents

  1. 1 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
    1. 1.1 for widening the Malaparamba - Vellimadukunnu road forming part of National Highway 766. 
      1. 1.1.1 The same falls under the Kozhikode City Road Improvement Project intended for widening the roads in order to ease traffic congestion in and around the Kozhikode City. The petitioners are owners of land on the side of the National Highway 766 and challenge the acquisition mainly on the ground of infraction of the time limit under the Act. The petitioners contend that the declaration under Section 6 was not made within one year from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Award under Section 11 of the Act was not passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6. The petitioners also point out that there is no necessity for acquisition since a parallel road (Kozhikode - Kunnamangalam) is nearing completion.
      2. 1.1.2 3. The Government Pleader made available the relevant files which reflect that Section 4(1) notification was published lastly in the site and village office on 26.05.2012. The files also reveal that the Commissioner for Land Revenue (who was duly authorised) had signed the Section 6 declaration on 20.04.2013 and 13.5.2013. A period of one year has not elapsed between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration in order to invalidate the entire land acquisition proceedings. It is not the requirement of law that Section 6 declaration should be published within one year of Section 4(1) notification as is attempted to be projected. It would suffice if the Officer authorised affixes his signature in the Section 6 declaration within the time limit of one year from Section 4(1) notification.
    2. 1.2 Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal and others [AIR 2002 (SC) 3309] 
      1. 1.2.1 Hence, Section 6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is prescribed to a declaration to be made that land is needed for a public purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to such Government.” 
    3. 1.3 S.R. Khatod v. State of Maharashtra [2002 (1) KLT 140 (SC)] 
      1. 1.3.1 that a publication of Section 6 declaration is merely a ministerial Act which can take place at a later stage. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings have to be scraped for non-adherence to the time limit under the Act has to fall to the ground. 
      2. 1.3.2 5. The declaration under Section 6 was on 20.4.2013 and 13.5.2013 in respect of two portions of the land and there was time enough for an Award to be passed under Section 11 of the Act. The proceedings for the acquisition of the land would lapse under Section 11A of the Act only if no award is made within the period of two years from Section 6 declaration. 
  2. 2 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 
    1. 2.1 No Award could have been passed under Section 11 of the Act after 1.1.2014 when the provisions of the New Act would apply for determination of compensation. An Award even if passed under the Act after 1.1.2014 can only depict a tentative assessment and subject to further determination under the New Act. This is evident from Section 24(1)(a) of the New Act which absolves the respondents from passing an Award under Section 11 of the Act after 1.1.2014. The contention of the petitioners that the proceedings for the land acquisition have lapsed under Section 11A of the Act cannot therefore be countenanced.
      1. 2.1.1 7. The contention of the petitioner that there is a parallel road and no public purpose is involved by the widening of the road in question has only to be stated for being repelled. Section 4(1) notification was published as early as on 26.5.2012 and the writ petition challenging the acquisition was filed as late as on 15.1.2015 after almost 2½ years. The petitioners should have approached this Court soon after Section 4 (1) notification and Section 6 declaration if really there was no public purpose. 
    2. 2.2 Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and others [(1996) 4 SCC 579] 
    3. 2.3 Hari Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1984) 3 SCR 417
      1. 2.3.1 It is too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that the land acquisition is vitiated by malafides or that there is no public purpose and the writ petition is highly belated.
      2. 2.3.2 8. I place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.C.S.Dias, Advocate as Amicus Curiae in this case. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 

(2015) 413 KLW 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

W.P (C) No.1673 of 2015

Dated this the 6th day of July, 2015

PETITIONER(S)

RAVEENDRAN AND OTHERS 

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ 

RESPONDENT(S)

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM - 695001.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS DIVISION), KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673001.

5. THE COORDINATOR, KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

6. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

7. KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. ADDL.

8. SREEJITH.M.

R5 & 6 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB. RADDL. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RADDL. BY ADV. SRI.VENKATESH GOPI RADDL. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESHMA 

J U D G M E N T 

Proceedings have been initiated under the 

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 

('the Act' for short) 

for widening the Malaparamba - Vellimadukunnu road forming part of National Highway 766. 

The same falls under the Kozhikode City Road Improvement Project intended for widening the roads in order to ease traffic congestion in and around the Kozhikode City. The petitioners are owners of land on the side of the National Highway 766 and challenge the acquisition mainly on the ground of infraction of the time limit under the Act. The petitioners contend that the declaration under Section 6 was not made within one year from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Award under Section 11 of the Act was not passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6. The petitioners also point out that there is no necessity for acquisition since a parallel road (Kozhikode - Kunnamangalam) is nearing completion.

2. I heard Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Gikku Jacob, Government Pleader on behalf of the State, Mr. B.S. Swathy Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the additional respondents and Mr.C.S.Dias, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

3. The Government Pleader made available the relevant files which reflect that Section 4(1) notification was published lastly in the site and village office on 26.05.2012. The files also reveal that the Commissioner for Land Revenue (who was duly authorised) had signed the Section 6 declaration on 20.04.2013 and 13.5.2013. A period of one year has not elapsed between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration in order to invalidate the entire land acquisition proceedings. It is not the requirement of law that Section 6 declaration should be published within one year of Section 4(1) notification as is attempted to be projected. It would suffice if the Officer authorised affixes his signature in the Section 6 declaration within the time limit of one year from Section 4(1) notification.

4. The Supreme Court in 

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal and others [AIR 2002 (SC) 3309] 

has in this regard observed as follows:- 

“14. As against this, Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, a declaration is to be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary of such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order. Further, such declaration is to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 

Hence, Section 6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is prescribed to a declaration to be made that land is needed for a public purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to such Government.” 

(emphasis supplied) 

The Supreme Court has also held in 

S.R. Khatod v. State of Maharashtra [2002 (1) KLT 140 (SC)] 

that a publication of Section 6 declaration is merely a ministerial Act which can take place at a later stage. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings have to be scraped for non-adherence to the time limit under the Act has to fall to the ground. 

5. The declaration under Section 6 was on 20.4.2013 and 13.5.2013 in respect of two portions of the land and there was time enough for an Award to be passed under Section 11 of the Act. The proceedings for the acquisition of the land would lapse under Section 11A of the Act only if no award is made within the period of two years from Section 6 declaration. 

But then the 

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 

('the New Act' for short) came into force with effect from 1.1.2014. 

No Award could have been passed under Section 11 of the Act after 1.1.2014 when the provisions of the New Act would apply for determination of compensation. An Award even if passed under the Act after 1.1.2014 can only depict a tentative assessment and subject to further determination under the New Act. This is evident from Section 24(1)(a) of the New Act which absolves the respondents from passing an Award under Section 11 of the Act after 1.1.2014. The contention of the petitioners that the proceedings for the land acquisition have lapsed under Section 11A of the Act cannot therefore be countenanced.

6. The proceedings of the Commissioner for Land Revenue invoking Section 17 of the Act itself refers to a letter dated 14.10.2011 of the District Collector, Kozhikode. The road in question goes right in front of the National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode and is the main access to reach Waynad which is a hot spot for Tourists. The widening of a road to such a place where there is heavy vehicular traffic cannot brook delay justifying the invocation of the urgency clause. The land acquisition proceedings have come to a final stage and about 555 land owners would be affected by the acquisition of the land on the side of this stretch of 8.4 kms. The Government Pleader submits that 420 persons out of 555 land owners have consented for the acquisition and that about 200 of them have already furnished copy of documents. It is reported that the State Government has also sanctioned 25 crores for payment of compensation to those who would be affected by the land acquisition. I do not feel that there is a tardy progress in the land acquisition proceedings which fatally affects the invocation of the urgency clause. No case has been made out to anull the land acquisition proceedings on the ground of invoking the urgency clause dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. 

7. The contention of the petitioner that there is a parallel road and no public purpose is involved by the widening of the road in question has only to be stated for being repelled. Section 4(1) notification was published as early as on 26.5.2012 and the writ petition challenging the acquisition was filed as late as on 15.1.2015 after almost 2½ years. The petitioners should have approached this Court soon after Section 4 (1) notification and Section 6 declaration if really there was no public purpose. 

The Supreme Court has in Urban Improvement Trust's case afore quoted had occasion to observe in this regard as follows:- 

“21. Further, learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petitions, the Court ought to have dismissed the same. In the present case, as stated above, the Notification under section 6 was published in the Official Gazette on 24.5.1994. The writ petitions are virtually filed after two years. In a case where land is needed for a public purpose, that too for a scheme framed under the Urban Development Act, the Court ought to have taken care in not entertaining the same on the ground of delay as it is likely to cause serious prejudice to the persons for whose benefit the Housing Scheme is framed under the Urban Development Act and also is having planned development of the area. The law on this point is well settled. 

[Re: 

Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and others [(1996) 4 SCC 579] 

and 

Hari Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1984) 3 SCR 417

It is too late in the day for the petitioners to contend that the land acquisition is vitiated by malafides or that there is no public purpose and the writ petition is highly belated.

8. I place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.C.S.Dias, Advocate as Amicus Curiae in this case. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. 

nj.