P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Acquisition of large extent of properties at the instance of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) and the subsequent declaration of land as 'industrial area,' followed by exemption granted under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) (in short Paddy Land Act) is the subject matter of challenge in these cases. 18285 of 2011 and W.A. No. 1085 of 2010 are in respect of the grievances projected by some owners of the lands, whereas the other two petitions i.e. W.P(C)No.15529 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.11534 of 2010 are styled as Public Interest Litigations.

2. The petitioners/appellants in the individual writ petitions/writ appeal challenge the acquisition proceedings on various grounds referring to violation of the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the alleged absence of 'public purpose', whereas the challenge involved in the other two cases is more with regard to the absence/obscurity in the Scheme, violation of various provisions in the statute, in particular, the 'Paddy Land Act'. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15529 of 2010 concedes that there is no challenge against the acquisition, but for the objection with regard to 'conversion' of the land contrary to the mandate of Act 28 of 2008. Almost similar contentions are raised in the other writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C)No.11534 of 2010 as well; wherein the constitutional validity of Section 10 of the Paddy Land Act is also sought to be challenged, besides the challenge against acquisition.

3. The case on the part of the petitioners was put forth by Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15529 of 2010, Mr. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11534 of 2010 and Mr. Devan Ramachandran, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.24437 of 2011. No separate arguments were addressed by the appellants in W.A.No.1085 of 2010; presumably for the reason that almost similar contentions are being projected and considered in the other cases. The factual and legal position on behalf of the respondent KINFRA, with minute particulars as to the scheme of the statute under the relevant provisions of law, were advanced by Mr. G.S. Reghunath; the learned Counsel for KINFRA. The version of the Government was placed before the Court by Mr. P.I. Davis, the learned Sr. Government Pleader. Parties and proceedings are referred to, as given in W.P.) 15529/2010, except where it is separately mentioned or dealt with.

4. Gist of the factual matrix is that, based on the resolution taken by the local authority by name Ramanattukara Grama Panchayath, to cause to set up a Knowledge Park in the area of the said Grama Panchayath, steps were taken by the KINFRA to identify suitable land. It is stated that, as many as three lands were subjected to inspection and scrutiny on feasibility and other relevant aspects and that a total extent of nearly 31.4763 hectors (77.7 Acres), which included mostly paddy lands and garden land, was identified in this regard. Further proceedings were taken, pursuant to which, Section 4(1) notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act way back on 03.12.2007. It was published in various dailies and the last publication was effected at the site and the concerned village office on 29.02.2008. By virtue of the scheme of the statute (Land Acquisition Act), declaration under Section 6 had to be published within 'one year' and the same was stated as done as per Ext. P1 dated 26.02.2009. In furtherance to the above proceedings, a detailed enquiry was conducted. As many as 166 objections were received and about 160 land acquisition cases were registered. After evaluating all the plus and minus points, the market value of the property was fixed and awards were passed in respect of 20.57 acres on 10.06.2010. In respect of another extent of 20.42 acres, awards