JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P18 declaration, issued by the Government of Kerala under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Fair Compensation Act), on various grounds, but primarily that his objections preferred before the competent Authority under Section 15(1) of the said Act has not been yet disposed of properly.

2. Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that his client had preferred Exts.P8 and P9 objections when the notification under Section 11(1) of the “Fair Compensation Act” had been issued earlier, and argued that the competent Authority was obligated to consider the same in its proper perspective. He pointed out that the reply given to his client, namely Ext.P13, omitted consideration of a very relevant fact, namely, that the requisitioning Authority – Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), is already in possession of larger extents of land than what was sought to be acquired. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that Ext.P18 be quashed as far as his client is concerned; adding that, pending this lis, Ext.P28 has been issued, wherein, it appears that said land has been excluded.

3. The afore submissions of the petitioner were vehemently opposed by Smt.Sajna – learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, relying upon a counter affidavit placed in record, saying that the extents of land available with the ISRO have been specifically stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof. She, therefore, prayed that the contention of the petitioner, that the ISRO is already in possession of excess land, may be rejected as being without basis. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader –

Smt.M.Sudhadevi appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted that the action for acquisition has been taken forward by the competent authorities strictly in accordance with the provisions of the “Fair compensation Act”, which is evident from the fact that Exts.P8 and P9 objections of the petitioner were considered in detail and rejected through Ext.P13. Thereafter, to a pointed question from this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that even though the contention of the petitioner, that ISRO was in possession of larger extents of land than what was sought to be acquired, has not been specifically dealt with in Ext.P13, this is because, the said contention could have been answered only by the ISRO, which it has now done in its counter affidavit. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record very carefully.

6. It needless to say that any action for acquisition of land can be done by the competent Authorities only strictly in accordance with the provisions of the “Fair Compensation Act”.

7. It is conceded that the publication of a preliminary notification under the “Fair Compensation Act”, namely Ext.P7 was done, and that the petitioner had preferred Exts.P8 and P9 objections against it. The competent Authority was, therefore, certainly enjoined to consider the same, which it appears to have been done, by issuing Ext.P13 order. The only contention of Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi is that Ext.P13 order is silent as to his client's contention that the ISRO is already in possession of larger extents of land than what was sought to be acquired. However, this contention has been controverted by the ISRO in through their averments in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, which are extracted below for ease of reference:

As regards to paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that LPSC Valiamala had originally 313.96 acres of land. The terrain of most of the land is sloppy with contour value differing by 65 meters. During 2007, the department of Space had decided to establish an academic Institute of repute namely Indian Instit