The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Act, 2013 prevail over general property laws, and the State Government had no authority to negotiate and purchase lands in a manner disadvantageous to the landowners. The judgment emphasized the protection of the landowner's interests and the right to fair compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution.

1. The captioned writ petitions arose in the premise of Section 4(1) notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vis-a-vis introduction of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereinafter called “Act, 2013”), and consequential agreements entered into by and between the petitioner land owners and respondent State Government in some cases, and securing consent letters from the petitioners in some cases, paying part consideration, and refuse to pay compensation under the Act, 2013, in view of the agreements executed to sell off the lands in accordance with the negotiated purchase value. The fact circumstances and the documents put forth in W.P.(C) 33708/2016 and the counter affidavit filed by the State Government in the said writ petition are referred to, in order to dispose of the writ petitions.

2. An extent of 0.09 Ares situate in Sy.No.575/7 Pt of Ernakulam Village and the building owned by the petitioner is under acquisition for the Kochi Metro Rail Project. Act 30 of 2013 has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. However, unreasonable delay was caused by the State Government in framing rules under the said Act. As no rules were framed, the Land Acquisition Authorities did not proceed under the provisions of the new Act and instead, forced the petitioners and others to deliver the property in advance. Taking into account the larger public interest, petitioner decided to cooperate with the acquisition subject to the right to get due compensation and other benefits under the law governing land acquisition. Basically petitioner is claiming the benefits under the Act, 2013, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014, evident from Ext.P1 notification. According to the petitioner, as projected in the very preamble itself, the Act is introduced to ensure a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement, and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be, affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. It is submitted Section 11 of Act, 2013 mandates publication of a preliminary notification to the effect that land in the area is required or likely to be required in connection with any public purpose, along with details of the land to be acquired in the official gazette, in two daily newspapers circulating the locality of which one shall be in the regional language and in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation as the case may be, in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Tahsil and uploaded in the website of the appropriate Government, in the affected area etc. etc. The first proviso to Section 12 provides that even the survey of the land cannot be conducted in the absence of any person authorized in writing by the owner. Section 15 deals with 'Hearing of objections' and sections 16 to 18 deal with rehabilitation scheme. Section 19 makes strict provisions for publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation and resettlement. Section 21 of the Act provides for 'notice to persons interested' and the enquiry and land acquisition award by the Collector is contemplated under section 23 of the Act. Therefore, the Act deals with determination of compensation, award of solatium, rehabilitation and resettlement award etc. etc.

3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, even though the petitioner is not against the acquisition of the property, if it is inevitable for a public purpose, that does not mean that, petitioner can be deprived of his property in gross disrega