Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Nandini Thampatti K.C D/o. Prabhakaran Thirumulpad - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No.5347, 16013 of 2025
Decided On : 02-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to land acquisition process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. non-consideration of alternate land proposal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. government's compliance with acquisition requirements. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. analysis of s.i.a report deficiencies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. reasons supporting government’s rejection of alternate land. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. rejection of writ petitions. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. direction for consideration of property alignment adjustment. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Under challenge in both these Writ Petitions are the land acquisition proceedings for the development of the Government Medical College, Manjeri, and for installation of a K.S.E.B sub-station for the said Government Medical College. The challenge is essentially premised on violation of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short), specifically on the non-consideration of an alternate place of acquisition, which has been recommended in the Social Impact Assessment study, under Section 4 ; and by the Expert Group, under Section 7 . The outcome of these Writ Petitions would depend on the interpretation of “land acquisition at an alternate place”, as also, the scope and ambit of the same. It requires to be noticed at the outset that this is the third round of litigation challenging the same acquisition; one among the earlier two, having been preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025, herself.
2. The following list of dates will unfurl the events, which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petitions: [Exhibits referred herein are cited according to the documents produced in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025].
| Sl. No. | Date | Event | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.02.2019 | The 2nd respondent issued Order proposing to acquire 2.8107 hectares of land, which included petitioner's property, for the purpose of construction of buildings for different departments of the hospital, an approach road and a sub-station for K.S.E.B. | Ext.P1 |
| 2 | - | Petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No.13772/2020 challenging Ext.P1 Order for violating the procedures under the 2013 Act. | |
| 3 | 15.09.2021 | This Court took into account the stand of the Government that the proposed acquisition will proceed only after the completion of S.I.A study and disposed of W.P.(C) No.13772/2020, leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner. | Ext.P3 |
| 4 | 14.12.2021 | The 2nd respondent issued another notice revising the cost of acquisition. | Ext.P2 |
| 5 | 02.06.2022 | The S.I.A team filed report finding that the proposed acquisition for the development of the Medical College is quite essential. However, it was pointed out that the acquisition has its own social impacts, wherefore, a final decision can be taken only by the Expert Committee. Note: A perusal of last chapter ofwhich summarises the conclusion, had merely recorded the version of the various stakeholders as regards the alternate proposal, without entering into any specific finding, relegating the issue for the final decision of the Expert Committee. | Ext.P5, |
| 6 | 11.07.2022 | A sub-committee constituted by the 7th respondent to conduct a study on the alternate proposal of land having an extent of 50 acres, situated 2 Kms away from the Medical College, filed report in favour of acquiring the alternate land. | Ext.P4 |
| 7 | 26.09.2022 | The Expert Group under Section 7 filed report finding that the project serves public purpose and that the potential benefits of the acquisition outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts. However, the Expert Group also found that the alternate proposal with respect to the 50 acres of land is worth consideration, simultaneous with the observation that the same is a policy decision to be taken at the discretion of the Government. | Ext.P6 |
| 8 | 11.07.2023 | The 3rd respondent passed an Order under Section 8(2) of the 2013 Act, deciding to proceed with the acquisition. | Ext.P7 |
| 9 | - | Aggrieved by Ext.P7 Order, petitioner and two others filed W.P.(C) No.27701/2023 | |
Land acquisition for expansion must consider alternative sites only if they are contiguous to existing facilities, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
Land acquisition for expansion must consider alternative sites only if they are contiguous to existing facilities, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
Mandatory requirements of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act need to be strictly followed to ensure only the absolute minimum land required for projects is acquir....
The court established that compliance with social impact assessment requirements is essential in land acquisition proceedings under the LA&RR Act.
Authorities must comply with binding judicial directives to consider landowner's alternate proposals in SIA under RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Judicial review of land acquisition decisions is limited to procedural legality, irrationality, and administrative impropriety.
Compliance with statutory procedures, consideration of expert recommendations, and technical explanations is crucial in land acquisition proceedings.
Court emphasizes the need for the Government to reassess land valuation and public interest in cases of abandoned land acquisition, highlighting that individual claims can satisfy public interest cri....
The Court affirmed that a writ petition is premature due to incomplete statutory assessments under the 2013 Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
