IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J.
M/S. Elstone Tea Estates Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Chief Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 36125 OF 2024, WP(C) NO. 36436 OF 2024
Decided On : 27-12-2024
(A) Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Sections 2(d), 2(e), 34, 38, 65, 72 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Government's decision to take over land for disaster management - Petitioners challenge the legality of the takeover alleging lack of compensation and jurisdiction under DM Act - Court finds that the DM Act empowers the Government to take over land for rehabilitation of disaster victims, with an obligation to pay adequate compensation. (Paras 2, 6, 12, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitions challenge the Government's decision to take over lands for a model township for landslide victims in Wayanad, Kerala, following a devastating landslide that caused significant loss of life and property. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The Government is competent to take over land under the DM Act for disaster management, including permanent acquisition, with a duty to pay fair compensation. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: Whether the Government can permanently take over land under the DM Act for disaster management and the legality of such action without compensation. (Paras 7, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DM Act allows for permanent acquisition of land in disaster management for public purpose, and the obligation to pay compensation is inherent in the exercise of eminent domain. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; Government's action upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
In the early hours of July 30, 2024, the picturesque Wayanad District in Kerala witnessed India's worst-ever landslide triggered by torrential downpour, devastating three villages - Chooralmala, Mundakkai and Punchirimattom. The scale of destruction was unimaginable. The entire villages were swept away, claiming 251 lives, injuring many, and leaving more than 47 people missing. Besides, 1555 houses were totally damaged, and 452 houses were partly damaged. The district known for its fertile landscape and agricultural prosperity was plunged into despair.
2. The State Government, immediately after the landslide, came forward with a plan for a comprehensive rehabilitation process for the survivors. It took a decision to build a model township to rehabilitate displaced families permanently and restore the livelihood of the region as a part of disaster management measures in the land having an extent of 65.41 Hectares in Block No.28, Sy. No.366 of Kottappadi Village, Vythiri Taluk in Nedumbala Estate (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property No.1’) and another land having an extent of 78.73 Hectares in Sy. No.88/1 in Block No.19 in the Elstone Tea Estates (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property No.2’). On 4/10/2024, the Government issued GO(Rt) No.11/2024/DMD (for short, GO dated 4/10/2024) according sanction and approval for setting up a model township in the subject properties for rehabilitating the disaster victims and to take over the subject properties under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short, the DM Act, 2005). The petitioner company in WP(C) No.36436/2024 who claims to be the title holder in possession of the subject property No.1 and the petitioner company in WP(C) No.36125/2024 who claims to be the title holder in possession of the subject property No.2 challenges GO dated 4/10/2024 mainly on the ground that it was issued beyond the powers under the DM Act, 2005 and is violative of the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is specifically alleged in the writ petitions that right to property being a constitutional right guaranteed under the Constitution, the Government is not entitled to take over the land from the private entity by resorting to the provisions of the DM Act, 2005 without payment of compensation. The petitioners have also attributed malafides and malice against the Government.
3. The 1st respondent filed a statement in both the writ petitions raising identical contentions. It is contended that the writ petitions are premature in view of the fact that the Government has not directed the petitioners to surrender the landed properties mentioned in the GO dated 4/10/2024 but has only accorded in principle, sanction to the District Collector, Wayanad, to take over the land proposed for rehabilitation/relocation of landslide victims. It is further contended that around 1210 families who were rendered homeless as a result of the landslide are accommodated temporarily on rented premises, and thus, it is a very urgent and imminent necessity to rehabilitate them permanently as part of disaster management measures taken. Accordingly, the District Collector who is the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, ‘DDMA’) identified the subject properties for utilizing the same for rehabilitation and reconstruction after taking into account all relevant factors and the suitability of the land considering environmental feasibility, viability and also the fact that it is free from landslide proneness and gave a proposal to the Government. The Government considered the proposal and, after due deliberation, decided to take possession of the subject properties, invoking the provisions of the DM Act, 2005, and GO dated 4/10/2024 was issued, accepting the proposal and granting in-principle approval for initiating proceedings for taking possession of the same. It is contended that the Government is well within i
AI
The Disaster Management Act, 2005 permits the government to permanently acquire land for disaster management purposes, ensuring compensation for affected property owners under the eminent domain prin....
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
The court affirmed that oral consent for land acquisition must be evidenced in writing, and deprivation of property without compensation violates constitutional rights.
State must compensate citizens for property utilized for public projects under due process. Delay in claiming rights does not preclude entitlement if injustice persists.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious consideration of land ownership claims under disaster management law, ensuring fair hearing for all parties involved.
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.