IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with statutory procedures, consideration of expert recommendations, and technical explanations is crucial in land acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

The Government of Kerala issued Ext.P1 order dated 15.10.2020 granting sanction for the acquisition of 7.52 hectares of land in Karakulam, Aruvikkara, Nedumangad, and Karipoor Villages for the four-laning of the Vazhayila – Nedumangad – Pazhakutty road, invoking the provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFCTLARR Act', for short). The petitioners own properties adjacent to the said road and their properties are included in Ext.P1 order. According to them, the alignment of the road is fixed without a proper social impact assessment, and is unscientific. It is stated that the present proposal is to acquire properties only from one side of the road without considering the availability of large extent of puramboke lands on the other side. The petitioners contend that using the puramboke land for widening the road could have avoided acquisition of private lands belonging to them and the Government could have saved public money. The petitioners refer to Ext.P6 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study report and state that the only advantage noted regarding the proposed alignment is the avoidance of approximately 23 curves. However, the report states that approximately 92 families will have to be evicted, impacting the livelihoods of people conducting business on one side of the road. It is also pointed out that about 420 Ares of vacant government property will remain unused. The petitioners also refer to Ext.P8 report of the Expert Group which concurs with the findings in the SIA study report.

2. The petitioners, therefore, filed W.P.(C) No. 19331 of 2021 seeking direction to the competent authority under the RFCTLARR Act and the Government to have a proper consideration of the recommendations in the SIA study report and to take a decision in accordance with the said recommendations. During the pendency of the above writ petition, Government issued Ext. P7 order dated 20.06.2022 granting sanction under Section 8(2) of the RFCTLARR Act to proceed with the acquisition. According to the petitioners, Ext.P7 order is a clear indication that the Government have decided to proceed with the acquisition without taking into account the SIA study report and the provisions of Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act. The petitioners state that, the Government, vide Ext.P9 letter dated 26.05.2022, directed the District Collector to submit another recommendation, and the District Collector, by Ext.P10, unilaterally recommended the acquisition of 7.561 hectares of land, deviating from the recommendations of the Expert Group in Ext.P8. It is on the basis of the said report that the Government have issued Ext.P7 order referred above.

3. On 12.08.2022, the Government published Ext.P12 preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act expressing the intention to acquire lands for the first reach of the project as originally envisaged. The petitioners state that the preliminary notification has been published without taking into consideration the recommendations in the SIA study report or the report of the Expert Group.

4. W.P.(C) No.19331 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P16 judgment permitting the petitioners to raise their objections to Ext.P12 notification before the competent authority. This Court directed the competent authority to consider the objections and make a reasoned decision in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the RFCTLARR Act. This Court observed that, when considering the objections raised by interested parties under Section 15, the competent authority is bound to consider the objection regarding the area and suitability of the land proposed to be acquired, the justification offered for the public purpose, and the findings in the SIA study report. This Court also observed that, since Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act mandates that the decision under Section