Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
NSS Karayogam No.1300, Mundapally, Peringanad Po, Adoor, Represented By Its President K.R.Venugopalan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C).Nos. 34904, 34924, 34935, 34940, 34956, 2018, 34960, 34974, 34981, 34988, 34990, 34997, 2018, 35019, 35027, 2018 & 35099 of 2018
Decided On : 26-08-2020
Land Acquisition Act, 1894;; The Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964- Rule 24 - Promissory estoppel could not be invoked when it was done in public interest-The original decision of the Government is contrary to its power conferred under Rule 24 as it was done without adverting to public interest involved-No promise would bind this Government if it is shown that original action itself was illegal and opposite to statutory provisions.
Statement of facts:
The power and limitation of the Executive Government to dispose of the land absolutely vested with them mainly acquired through the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the petitioners in all these writ petitions were acquired to construct an irrigation canal under the Kallada Irrigation Project. The total extent of the land acquired from this area would come to around 17 Hectares, during 1970-80.
Finding of the court
If the Government is of the view that consideration was inadequate as the land purchased in Palakkad do not represent the market value of the land value to be returned, in such circumstances, it is appropriate for the Government to reexamine the matter. If the Government finds there is no scope for reexamination as above, acting upon the earlier Government order, dated 18.1.2016, the Government shall take necessary steps to implement its decision dated 18.1.2016.
Result: Writ petitions are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
These writ petitions raise an essential question as to the power and limitation of the Executive Government to dispose of the land absolutely vested with them mainly acquired through the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the petitioners in all these writ petitions were acquired to construct an irrigation canal under the Kallada Irrigation Project. The total extent of the land acquired from this area would come to around 17 Hectares, during 1970-80.
2. It appears that the construction of the irrigation canal through the petitioners lands was dropped or abandoned. According to the petitioners, the lands remained unutilized. They would submit that the lands remained part of their property even though ownership and title vested with the State. They would further submit that the lands acquired pass through the middle of the property of some of the petitioners and some of them are using it as an access. Specific grievances raised by each of the petitioners reproduced hereunder:
| Sl. No. | W.P.(C) Nos. | Specific grievances |
| 1 | 34990/18 | Land acquired is frontage. Will be no road access & landlocked. Cause loss and depreciation to remaining registered holdings. |
| 2 | 34935/18 | Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access/ utilise remaining land. It is close to residential house, intrusion of stranger cause hardships. |
| 3 | 34988/18 | Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access/utilise remaining land. |
| 4 | 34924/18 | 1st plot was square land acquired diagonally thus two unconnected triangular plots. 2nd plot – Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access/utilise remaining land. |
| 5 | 34956/18 | Land acquired is frontage. Will be no road access. Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access house. |
| 6 | 34960/18 | Land acquired is frontage of house (1.5 mtr away) pass through middle. Will be no road access. If allotted unable to access house and result in intrusion by strangers would cause hardships. |
| 7 | 35027/18 | Land acquired 1 mtr away from kitchen. |
|
|
| If allotted intrusion by strangers would cause hardships. |
| 8 | 34974/18 | Land acquired frontage of house and is the only road access. Petitioner has no other land. |
| 9 | 35019/18 | Land acquired pass through middle of the property. Remaining lying as narrow strips, unfit for other purpose. |
| 10 | 34997/18 | Land acquired is frontage of house (1.5 mtr away). If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. |
| 11 | 35099/18 | Land acquired close to house & well. If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. |
| 12 | 34904/18 | Land acquired 1 mtr away from building. If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. |
| 13 | 34940/18 | Land acquired pass through middle. Remaining land lying as narrow stretches. No sufficient width, unfit for any useful purpose. |
| 14 | 34981/18 | Land acquired pass through middle. Remaining land lying as narrow stretches. No sufficient width, unfit for any useful purpose (kavu & pond situated in remaining land). |
3. The Government appears to have decided to assign the acquired lands which remained unutilised to the landless under a scheme formulated by the Government in that regard. At this juncture, the petitioners moved the Government. According to the petitioners, the Government taking note of the hardships and grievances decided to return the lands to the petitioners. This was on a condition that the petitioners should make available any other alternative land having an extent of five times than the property which was acquired from each of them for the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
