The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition of land must be for a public purpose, and the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act must be conducted in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the nature of the acquisition and the purpose for which it is intended.

Under challenge in these writ petitions is the proceedings dated 24.12.2011 of the Commissioner for Land Revenue in LR(C1) 39969/2011.

2. The petitioners are the lineal descendants of late Mahakavi Kumaran Asan, hereinafter referred as the late poet. They owned the properties in Sy.Nos.265 as well as 269 in Block No.3 of Veiloor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The petitioners allege that with the object of preserving the house and adjoining structures used by the late poet for his residence as well as expounding his poetic genius, an extent of about 1 acre 25 cents was gifted by the petitioners and other close relatives of the late Poet to the Government of Kerala. However, certain persons who are having political power succeeded in ousting the members of the family of the late Poet from the committee for the administration of the monument when the corrupt practices and misappropriation by the aforesaid local people were questioned by them. According to the petitioners, there were series of litigations between the petitioners with the aforesaid persons and therefore, out of revenge and as a vindictive measure, those persons influenced the Government and initiated proceedings for acquisition of the adjoining land owned by the petitioners invoking urgent clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for the alleged developmental activities of the monument. This was challenged before this Court in certain writ petitions and ultimately, in Writ Appeal No.1723/2009, this Court directed the Government to inquire and find out whether there was actual public purpose and need for the land. The petitioners allege that without giving any opportunity to them, an order was passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act on 24.12.2011. Though the petitioners demanded not to take any action on the basis of the said order without even passing a declaration under Section 6 and without conducting any award enquiry, the respondents are attempting to forcibly evict the petitioners from their property. This is the gist of the contents of all the writ petitions.

3. The petitioner in WPC No.4130/2012 alleges that she as well as her cousins, who are the grandchildren of the late Poet, have their ancestral property adjoining the said 1 acre and 25 cents and old house where the late Poet lived which was already gifted to the Government and on the strength of the order of the Commissioner for Land Revenue, the respondents are trying to take over their property.

4. The petitioners in WPC Nos.4140/2012 and 4144/2012 are also the grandchildren of the late Poet. In these writ petitions, they allege that their father late Prabhakaran has executed Ext.P1 Gift Deed in 1958 with respect to 1.25 acres of land in Thiruvananthapuram District and the ancestral home of the late poet subject to certain conditions upon the breach of which the property would revert to the family of the donor. They would also contend that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner for Land Revenue is against the directions in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1723/2009. They allege that on the strength of the impugned order, the respondents are trying to secure the prime land of the petitioners and other members of the family of the Poet.

5. The petitioner in WPC No.4494/2012 is another grandson of the late Poet. He alleges that at the instance of the present committee which manages the aforesaid 1.25 acres of land which started motivated actions against the properties of the petitioner, his brothers and cousin sister which were sought to be acquired on the strength of the impugned order of the Commissioner for Land Revenue.

6. The Kumaran Aasan National Institute of Culture (KANIC) which is impleaded as the 5th respondent in the first three writ petitions and as the first respondent in WPC No.4494/2012 has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the said respondent had admitted the execution of the gift deed by late Prabhakaran