IMPORTANT POINT
The Government may have a claim over the property. There is no dispute on the proposition that the Government cannot acquire its own land. The very reason for acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013 is to acquire land without the consent of the holder of the land, the question whether the Government can acquire the land, over which it asserted right or interest can be postponed to be decided to a stage when the Government initiates the land acquisition proceedings invoking LARR Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

1. The Government of Kerala identified lands in Resurvey Nos. 281, 282, 283 of Block No. 22, Erumeli South Village, Kanjirappally Taluk and Survey No. 299 of Block No. 21, Manimala Village, Kanjirappally Taluk, having an extent of 2263.18 Acres for setting up of new Greenfield Airport at Sabarimala.

2. The aforesaid land originally was part of the estate of M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Plantations Ltd. This estate is popularly known as Cheruvally Estate. By change of hands, the aforesaid estate stands in the name of Ayana Charitable Trust, the first petitioner herein of which the second petitioner is the chief functionary.

3. The Government initiated land conservancy proceedings against the estate held by the Harrisons Malayalam Plantations Ltd. A Division Bench of this Court in a reported judgment in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369 in a challenge made by Harrisons Malayalam Limited including the first petitioner-Trust found that the proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KLC Act) is without any jurisdiction. The Division Bench was of the view that disputed question of title which was raised in the land conservancy proceedings cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the KLC Act. This was taking note of the long-settled possession of Harrisons Malayalam and its assignees over the land. The Division Bench was of the view that all the questions related to the title and interest of the land can be decided if the State institute a civil suit for recovery. The Division Bench also observed that since the State asserts title over the land, it is for the State to file such a suit. The Division Bench also found that dispute on title raised by the writ petitioners in a challenge to the proceedings under the KLC Act was a bona fide dispute. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government was also dismissed by the Apex Court.

4. The State Government in the wake of the dismissal of their Special Leave Petition and the observations made by the Division Bench (supra) instituted a civil suit before the Sub Court, Pala, The civil suit was numbered as O.S. No. 72/2019. The suit was for a declaration of title of the State, recovery of possession and to realize Rs. 5 crores per year as damages. The suit property covers the property sought to be acquired from the petitioners invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, LARR Act, 2013).

5. It is in the background of the litigative history relating to the land as above, this writ petition was laid to challenge the decision of the Government. The State Government, by its order, G.O. (Ms) No. 158/2020/RD, dated 18.6.2020, directed the District Collector, Kottayam, to initiate acquisition of land by invoking the provisions in the LARR Act, 2013. While deciding to acquire the land as above, in the order the Government directed that the Collector shall deposit the entire compensation before the Hon'ble Court having jurisdiction over the area as per Section 77(2) of LARR Act, 2013. This is because of the fact that there exists a dispute on the title of the property and also in the light of the suit filed by the Government before the civil court.

6. This matter was heard at length through videoconferencing on the request made by the counsel for both the parties, namely, the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K.V. Viswanathan (assisted by Shri Cherian Geevarughese, Shri P. Haridas, Shri Biju Hariharan, Shri R.B. Balachandran, Shri Renji George Cherian, Shri Shijimol Mathew, Shri P.C. Shijin, Shri Rishikesh Haridas, for the petitioners; Shri Jaideep Gupta assisted by Shri Mohammed Anzar K.J. Special Government Pleader (Revenue), and learned Senior Government Pleaders Shri P. Narayanan, Shri V. Manu for the State; Shri K.P.Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Millu Dandapani, Shri Roy Thomas and Shr