The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose for which land is sought to be acquired must satisfy the requirements of a 'public purpose' as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Patnaik, J.

Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment in O.P.No. 2984 of 1988. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Respondent No. 4 in the Original Petition is the appellant in W.A.No. 377 of 1990 and respondents, 1, 2,3 and 6 in the Original Petition are the appellants in W.A.Nb.400 of 1990.

2. Appellants in both the cases have challenged the finding in the Original Petition by which Ext. P15 notification dated 22-3-1988 under S.4 read with S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been quashed.

3. The case of the petitioner in the Original Petition, who is respondent No. I in both the appeals, in brief is as follows:

Petitioner purchased a piece of paddy land in R.S. No. 38/1 of Kodiyeri Village, in 1978. She reclaimed the land and started the construction of residential buildings. Sree Jagannath Temple, which was established by Sree Narayana Guru in 1906, is situated at a distance of about a kilometer away from the petitioner's property. The above temple is managed by the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent is the President of Sree Jnanodaya Yogam. The petitioner in the O.P. on the one side and the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent on the other are on inimical terms on account of business rivalry.

As part of the festival in the Jagannalh Temple, a Pallivetta (Royal Hunt) is performed on the penultimate day of the festival every year. It is performed at a place situate to the south of the petitioner's property. The deity is taken out on an elephant in procession to the place where the Pallivclla is performed. This religious function lasts only for an hour. There is no fixed route as such through which the procession is to be taken from the main road to the Thara where the Pallivetta is performed. After purchasing the property, the petitioner left a passage of 10 feet in width on the eastern side for access to the place to the south of her property where Pallivetta is usually performed. But the 5th respondent in order to harass the petitioner insisted that the procession should be taken out through' the western side of the petitioner's property and according to him' it is through that portion that the procession has been passing from time immemorial. A number of civil suits and cases were filed to have the passage for the procession. During the pendency of the civil cases, proceedings were initiated for acquiring a portion of the petitioner's property over which respondents 4 and 5 claimed a right of easement for the benefit of Sree Jagannalh Temple. On 11-5-1983, the SHI respondent submitted a requisition to the District Collector for acquisition of land measuring about two cents belonging to the petitioner for providing passage to the place of Pallivclta. A joint inspection was conducted by the Tahsildar and the temple authorities. It was found that the exact area necessary for the purpose is 6.25 cents. Accordingly, a revised requisition was sent by the 4th respondent on 2-3-1984. The petitioner objected to the same by filing a petition dated 2-6-1983 staling that it is unnecessary to acquire the land as there is an alternate pathway for the procession to pass to the place of Pallivetta. Subsequently, a notification under S.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published on 24-4-1984 to which the petitioner tiled objections on 22-5-1985. An enquiry was conducted on 24-9-1984. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the validity of the land acquisition proceedings by tiling O.P.No. 9879 of 1980 before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed in that case, it was stated that the Government had accorded sanction under S.39 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act by order dated 23-10-1986. An interim stay order was passed by this Court in that writ petition prohibiting dispossession of the petitioner with a clarification that the petitioner is entitled to raise whatever objections she wanted to make before the Land Acquisition Officer. But, no further steps were take