Back
1959 Supreme(Ker) 318
Judges : VAIDIALINGAM
Kamalamma - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 41 of 1959
Decided On : 11/30/1959
Advocates Appeared :
G. Viswanatha Iyer; For Petitioners C. M. Kuruvilla; For 1st Respondent P. Govindan Nair; P. K. Kurien; G. Balagangadharan Nair; For 2nd Respondent T. K. Narayana Pillai; L. Narayanan Potti; For 3rd Respondent
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that an acquisition can be for a 'Public purpose' even if it benefits a particular section of the public, provided the object of the acquisition advances a public purpose. The court emphasized that the acquisition for the widening of the existing lane was in discharge of the statutory duties and obligations of the Corporation of Trivandrum, and was intended to provide greater convenience to the public.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Travancore Land Acquisition Act 1089 - The court considered the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings and determined whether the proposed acquisition was for a 'Public purpose' under Art.31(2) of the Constitution. The court concluded that the acquisition was for a 'Public purpose' and upheld the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Trivandrum and the State to proceed with the acquisition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Kerala, at the instance of the City Corporation, Trivandrum, alleging that the proposed acquisition was not intended for a 'public purpose' but to benefit a single individual, the third respondent. The petitioners also alleged malafide and abuse of powers under the Land Acquisition Act, contending that the acquisition violated their fundamental rights and the provisions of Art.31 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition was for a 'Public purpose' and upheld the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Trivandrum and the State to proceed with the acquisition. The court rejected the allegations of malafide and abuse of powers, concluding that the acquisition was in discharge of the statutory duties and obligations of the Corporation of Trivandrum and was intended to provide greater convenience to the public using the existing lane.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed compulsory acquisition was for a 'Public purpose' under Art.31(2) of the Constitution, and whether the acquisition violated the petitioners' fundamental rights and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also considered the allegations of malafide and abuse of powers under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition for the widening of the existing lane was in discharge of the statutory duties and obligations of the Corporation of Trivandrum, and was intended to provide greater convenience to the public. The court emphasized that the acquisition did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights and was for a 'Public purpose' under Art.31(2) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the application, upholding the acquisition proceedings and ordering the petitioners to bear the costs of the first and second respondents.
1. In this application filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are the owners of Sy. Nos. 197/2 and 197/8 of Anchamada Village, Trivandrum taluk, challenge the land acquisition
proceedings taken by the State of Kerala, at the instance of the City Corporation, Trivandrum in respect of portions of the two survey numbers. The acquisition is also in respect of parts of certain other survey numbers belonging to other owners and the petitioners are not interested in them.
2. The main attack that is made by the petitioners in these proceedings is that the proposed acquisition is not intended for a 'public purpose' or to benefit the public and that it is only to benefit the third respondent. Therefore, the question to be decided is as to whether the proposed compulsory acquisition in this case, is for a'Public purpose' in which case alone, it will be saved under Art.31(2) of the Constitution.
3. The circumstances leading up to this application are briefly as follows:
Though the petitioners have also filed a sketch showing the lie of the respective properties, including the portions of the lands proposed to be acquired, during the course of arguments, Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners, has agreed to this court accepting the sketch, R2 filed by the second respondent, Corporation of Trivandrum as the correct one. According to the petitioners, Sy. No. 197/8 lies north of Sy. No. 197/2. Sy. No. 197/8 is not shown in the sketch R2, but there is no dispute about its location. There is a road called Puthichakonam road south of Sy. No. 197/2 and according to the petitioners, it ends on the west of Sy. No. 200.
4. The petitioners allege that Sy. No. 199 belongs to the third respondent, and she goes to her house from the Puthichakonam road through a footpath, which is part of the petitioners' property at the eastern end. According to the petitioners, the third respondent is a very influential lady and in order to have greater facilities to go to her house, she attempted to get further properties from the petitioners' survey numbers, but she failed in that attempt. Therefore, she has managed with the City Corporation, Trivandrum, to make suitable reports to the Government about a portion of the petitioners' property being required for a 'Public purpose' namely for widening of a road. On this, the State, first respondent, has made a declaration under S.6 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act - Act XI/1089 to the effect that 1 cent 891 sq. links of land from Sy. No. 197/2 and 3 cents and 715 sq. links from Sy. No. 197/8 are required for widening the said road.
4 (a). It is further alleged that the petitioners moved the State to drop the acquisition proceedings and represented that the acquisition is being made solely to benefit the interests of the third respondent. But the State has not ultimately agreed with the petitioner's representations and the State is taking further steps to complete the acquisition proceedings.
5. The declaration of the Government is challenged on the ground that the acquisition is invalid and without jurisdiction as it is not for a'Public purpose'; while on the other hand, it is only to benefit one single individual namely, the influential third respondent.
6. Attack also is made that the public will not at all be benefitted by the said acquisition. There is also an attack made that the acquisition is malafide and an abuse of the powers conferred under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is stated that the acquisition violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners and is also in flagrant violation of the provisions of Clause.2 of Art.31 of the; Constitution.
7. The first respondent; the State, has controverted the various allegations made by the petitioners. On the other hand, it is stated that on 18-9-1957 the Commissioner of the Corporation of Trivandrum addressed the District Collector, Trivandrum that the lane leading from the extremity of Puthichakonam road
