IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
P. Harish, S/o. Late P.M. Madhavan Nair & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 4008 of 2024
Decided On : 11-07-2024
Land Acquisition - Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 - Sections 61, 76, 77 - Master Plan - Pavangad -Ulliyery (PUKC) road widening project - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 - [LAND ACQUISITION] - [Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016] - [Sections 61, 76, 77] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, particularly Sections 61, 76, and 77, and their implications on the proposed land acquisition for the Pavangad -Ulliyery (PUKC) road widening project. The court analyzed the conflict between the Master Plan regulations and the government's power to acquire land for public purposes, emphasizing the broader interpretation of 'public purpose' in land acquisition matters. The court also highlighted the relevance of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013, in addressing the petitioners' objections and concerns.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, joint owners of land in a residential zone, challenged the proposed acquisition of their property for the Pavangad -Ulliyery (PUKC) road widening project, citing violations of the Master Plan regulations and irreversible damage to their property. The respondents justified the acquisition based on the approved alignment plan and the need for road improvement through land acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was premature and dismissed it without prejudice to the petitioners' rights, emphasizing that their objections and concerns could be raised under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013.
Issues: The issues revolved around the conflict between the Master Plan regulations and the government's power to acquire land for public purposes, the validity of the proposed acquisition against the stipulations in the Master Plan, and the relevance of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the government's power to acquire land for public purposes, including road improvement projects, should be viewed in the context of 'public purpose' and the broader interpretation of land acquisition laws. The court also highlighted that objections and concerns regarding the acquisition could be raised under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013.
Final Decision: The writ petition was held to be premature and dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' rights, allowing them to raise their objections and concerns under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013.
JUDGMENT :
Petitioners are stated to be the joint owners in possession of 21 Cents of land in Resurvey No.31/35, 36 of Elathur Village. A house situated on the said land was re-constructed after obtaining a building permit from the 8th respondent Corporation, in terms of the Master Plan applicable to the respondent Corporation and sanctioned under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016. The permit dated 15.1.2021 is produced as Ext.P1 and the occupancy certificate granted on 20.5.2022 is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioners contend that the property in question lies within the Corporation limits in a residential zone in the Zoning Regulations specified in the Master Plan. As per the Master Plan, the proposed width of the access road of the aforementioned property of the petitioners is 18 metres (8 metres wider than the existing road). The relevant portion of the Master Plan is produced as Ext.P3 and the proposed Land Use Map of Kozhikode Urban Area Master Plan 2035 is produced as Ext.P4.
2. On the strength of Exts. P3 and P4 the petitioners contend that the regulation of constructions and/or land developments on the sides of the new roads/roads proposed for widening as per the Master Plan shall be governed by the distance from the central line of the road unless otherwise specified in the Master Plan or Detailed Town Planning Schemes or any detailed road alignments approved by the Chief Town Planner concerned. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that even if the existing road with 10 metres width is increased to 18 metres as per the proposed plan, widening of the road should only take place equally from the central line of the road towards both sides and therefore, only 4 metres can be taken additionally from the adjoining properties on either side of the road for widening as per the Master Plan.
3. The petitioners submit that they came to know from the office of the Kerala Road Fund Board that there was a proposal for acquisition when the officials from the office of the seventh respondent came to the property of the petitioners on 27.7.2022 and placed survey stones 8.2 meters inside their property in a manner which would almost take half of the house of the petitioners. Though the petitioners pointed out the same was contrary to the measurement provided in Ext.P3 Master Plan, the officials responded by stating that the survey stones were being placed as part of the Pavangad -Ulliyery (PUKC) road widening project. Though the petitioners had submitted representation before the Public Information Officer of the seventh respondent, in the reply it was clarified that Pavangad -Ulliyery road is being widened to 14 metres, a copy of the road alignment which was designed and prepared by the third respondent was also furnished. Exts.P6 and P6(a) are the replies and the approved alignment of the PUKC road so obtained.
4. The contention of the petitioners, in short, is that the attempted acquisition is contrary to the stipulations in the Master Plan and also causes irreversible damage to the petitioner's property. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P8 circular issued by the second respondent dated 7.9.2023 to all departments to ensure that all new development brought into a place where there is a Master Plan/DTP Scheme in existence should be implemented based on the Master Plan/DTP Scheme. The petitioner further submitted that the road alignment is fixed from the central line of the road, as in the case of the Master Plan, the instant issue would never have arisen.
5. A statement has been filed by the respondents, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder :
The government's power to acquire land for public purposes, the broader interpretation of 'public purpose' in land acquisition matters, and the relevance of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transpa....
Since the property is not designated as compulsorily acquired land, there is no requirement for the Government to take the appropriate action envisaged under section 67 of the Act, 2016 can never be ....
The impugned requirement to surrender properties for road widening as a precondition for building plan approval violated property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the Karnat....
The designation of land for public purposes under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act does not lapse after a specified time, but the rights of property owners must be balanced against long de....
Point of Law : petitioners cannot be deprived of their properties earmarked as road in the revised Master Plan, 2015 merely because they intend to develop their properties by obtaining sanctioned bui....
A purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, is premature if issued before the expiry of two years from the date of coming into operation of the sanctioned Ma....
Substantial compliance with statutory requirements prevails over procedural shortcomings when no prescribed form is provided by rules despite statutory mandates.
Court found that, if no steps are taken by Municipal Corporation or State Government to acquire property within period prescribed under Section 67 of Act 2016, person who issued purchase notice is en....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.