Back
1999 Supreme(Ker) 129
Judges : A.R.LAKSHMANAN,K.NARAYANA KURUP
Saroja Mony - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P.Nos. 24005 etc. of 1998& W.A.No.553 of 1997
Decided On : 03/18/1999
Advocates Appeared :
K.C. John (Sr. Advocate) & N. Sankara Menon For Petitioners Babu Varghese, M.V. Joseph, T. Karunakaran Nambiar,. Addl. Advocate General, (T.M. Mohammed Yousuff) & Government Pleader (Molly Jacob) For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notifications under S.4(1) were not barred by limitation as the declaration under S.6(1) was published within the stipulated time. The court also affirmed the viability and benefit of the water supply scheme to the public at large.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Barred by Limitation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) - S.4(1), S.6(1) - The court dismissed the Original Petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents as barred by limitation. The court found that the notifications under S.4(1) were not barred by limitation as the declaration under S.6(1) was published within the stipulated time. The court also found that the project for augmenting the water supply system was workable and beneficial to the public at large. The court dismissed the petitions and held that none of the grounds raised by the petitioners merit any consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The Original Petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents as barred by limitation. The notifications under S.4(1) were issued for acquiring lands for the implementation of a water supply scheme. The petitioners contended that the notifications were barred by limitation and that the authorities fixed a low compensation for the lands acquired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notifications under S.4(1) were not barred by limitation as the declaration under S.6(1) was published within the stipulated time. The court also found that the project for augmenting the water supply system was workable and beneficial to the public at large. The court dismissed the petitions and held that none of the grounds raised by the petitioners merit any consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notifications under S.4(1) for land acquisition were barred by limitation. The court also considered the contention regarding the adequacy of compensation and the viability of the water supply scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notifications under S.4(1) were not barred by limitation as the declaration under S.6(1) was published within the stipulated time. The court also found that the water supply scheme was workable and beneficial to the public at large.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Original Petitions and Writ Appeals, holding that none of the grounds raised by the petitioners merit any consideration.
AR. Lakshmanan, ag. C.J.
Heard Mr. K.C. John, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N. Sankara Menon for petitioners, Mr. T.M. Yousuff, Addl. Advocate General and Smt. Molly Jacob, Government Pleader for the State and Mr. Babu Varghese, Standing Counsel for Water Authority.
2. The Original Petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents by Ext. P2 and P2(a ) as barred by limitation. Exts. P2 and P2(a ) are the notifications issued under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for acquiring the lands specified therein situated in Aluva East and West Villages, Thrikkakara North, Vazhakkalaand Edapally South Villages. The lands are needed for a public purpose viz., "for Adhoc Augmentation of Kochi Water Supply Scheme". A notification in the gazette was issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA) General Ernakulam on 25.7.1996 (Ext. P2) in accordance with the provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.4 of the Act. In view of the urgency of the case, the Board of Revenue in its Order No. LIZ (C) 6-19762/96 K.Dis. dated 22.7.1996 under sub-s.(4) of S.17 of the said Act has directed that the provisions of S.5A of the Act shall not apply to this case. The acquisition proceedings are initiated for acquiring the land for the implementation of HUDCO Scheme to meet the acute shortage of drinking water in Ernakulam, Western Kochi and Vypeen Island. The scheme is intended to supply water where acute shortage being felt in the area mentioned above. Though 4(1) notification was published on 25.7.1996 and 12.8.1996 as per Exts. P2 and P2(a) the land acquisition proceedings could not be proceeded speedily due to the obstruction caused by the petitioners and other land owners having property within the alignment notified for acquisition. The survey work for the purpose of publishing S.6 declaration was able to be done only with the aid of police due to the obstructions caused by the land owners at various P1 aces coming within the alignment. However, S.6 declaration got approved by the Board of Revenue within one year from the last date of publication of S.4(1) notification. The details regarding the dates of 4(1) notification published in the Gazette, dailies, locality in the various villages and the details of S.6 declaration are given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. We shall refer to the same at the appropriate stage.
3. O.P. No. 23586/98 was filedby 91 petitioners challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated as per Exts. P2 and P2(a ) notifications which have been issued for the purpose of Adhoc Augmentation of Kochi Water Supply Scheme. Ext. P2 notification is in respect of acquiring land situated in Aluva Taluk, Aluva West and East Villages, Thrikkakara North and Vazhakkala Villages of Kanayannur Taluk. Exts. P2(a ) notification is for acquiring the land situated in Edapally South Village.
4. The main contention of the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions is that Exts. P2 and P2(a) are barred by limitation and that the authorities are fixing the land value-as low as possible. It is also submitted by the petitioners that the respondents have fixed a ridiculously low compensation for the lands acquired and that the Government have not taken any steps in regard to the proposal of the resettlement of the evictees.
5. Mr. N. Sankara Menon, Learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that the Kerala Water Authority has formulated an unworkable adhoc scheme for ostensible purpose of augmentation of water supply to Corporation of Cochin and its environs at enormous cost running into hundreds crores of rupees without the mandatory sanction of the Ministry of Environment, Government of India. It is submitted that the adhoc scheme is to lay pipes at huge cost running to about 300 crores without improving the infrastructure and without completing the other allied schemes will not improve water supp
