IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the government's obligation to initiate proceedings for determining adequate compensation for acquired land as per the provisions of the LARR Act 2013, emphasizing the right to fair compensation and the principles of law regarding deprivation of property.

JUDGMENT :

The above writ petition is filed seeking to declare that the action on the part of the respondents in acquiring the properties of the petitioner for the ‘Kottayam Corridor Project' without following due process of law and without payment of compensation amount is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and for other consequential reliefs.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of different extents of land in Nattakam and Panachikkadu Village in Kottayam District, as is evident from Exts.P1 to P4. The 1st respondent formulated a project by the name 'Kottayam Development Corridor' as part of a larger proposal for the development and expansion of the town. The 1st respondent after realizing that such project would require full co-operation and voluntary surrender by the land owners, called for a meeting on 08.10.2011 and on the basis of the promises and assurances given by the respondents that their demand for conversion of the remaining extent of land after the surrender, would be accepted, the petitioners granted permission for effecting construction in their property and surrendered the following extent of property:

By Ext.P5 minutes of the meeting which was attended by the Minister and the other officials wherein it was reiterated that the land owners surrendering the lands will be permitted to convert an equal extent of their remaining lands and that exemption will be granted for effecting changes in the BTR records to enable change in the zoning for carrying out the project. While so, Ext.P6 order was issued by the 1st respondent stating that those land owners who have surrendered their whole extent of land will be allotted with Government land to an extent of 50% of the total surrendered land and such of the land owners who have surrendered a portion of their holdings will be allowed to convert paddy land (excluding wetland)to an extent of 50% of the land which they have surrendered to State Government. Petitioners submit that a conjoint reading of Exts.P5 and P6 would clearly denote that respondent No.1 reneged on its initial promise to the landowners and instead of allowing them to convert an equal extent of the surrendered property for construction, the new order stipulated that the landowners including the petitioners herein would only be allowed to convert 50% of the surrendered land for construction purposes. Despite the unilateral modification, petitioners decided not to raise any objection against Ext.P6. Even thereafter, no action was taken from the side of the 1st respondent. Consequently, one of the affected landowners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.33882/2015, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment directing the Government to implement Ext.P6 order. Even after a direction was issued as per Ext.P7, no steps were taken to implement the same and the petitioners therein were constrained to approach this Court by filing CCC No.2135/2016. While contempt of court proceeding was pending, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 order holding that change of character of remaining lands of persons who have surrendered portions of their lands for road widening cannot be permitted as the same will be in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

It was