Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49608
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MR. S. MANIKUMAR, CJ, MR. A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J
K. ANIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C).No.14401 OF 2009(S)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR, SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN
For the Respondents: SMT. MERRY GEORGE, SRI.K.D.BABU
The court affirmed that public land could be sold under municipal authority if it serves the needs of local residents, upholding statutory compliance and proper decision-making processes.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 - Sections 207 and 210 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Public interest litigation challenging sale of land - Petitioner contended that Corporation of Kozhikode had no authority to sell land acquired for public purpose. Court held land would be sold to respondents as per statutory provisions and existing resolutions without violating public interest. (Paras 6, 20, 41)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope and standards - Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision. Courts cannot substitute their judgment in administrative matters unless the decision is arbitrary or illegal. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the sale of 5.572 cents of land, arguing it was acquired for public use and that the municipality lacked power to sell it despite modifications being made to the development land use plan. The respondents claimed the land was needed for access to residential properties.
Findings of Court:
The decision-making process followed by the Corporation of Kozhikode was valid, and the sale was deemed reasonable and necessary for the residents using the land for access.
Issues: The issues included the legality of selling public land and whether the Corporation had followed the proper decision-making process outlined in existing laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sale did not contravene any statute and upheld the municipal authority’s power to sell the remnant piece of land for proper usage, stating that public interest could still be served even with the sale.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on relevant legal precedents and arguments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. judicial review principles and case facts. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. evaluation of the decision-making process. (Para 39 , 41) |
| 5. conclusion of the court's judgment and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10 th day of February, 2021
S.Manikumar, CJ.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation of Kozhikode, represented by its Secretary, respondent No.2, as per the resolution dated 06.07.2007 (Exhibit-P2), approved by the State of Kerala, respondent No.1, vide orders dated 01.01.2008 and 18.03.2008 (Exhibits-P3 and P4) respectively, instant public interest writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the same.
2. Petitioner has also sought for a direction commanding respondent No. 2 to keep the property referred to in Exhibits-P2 to P4 in trust for the benefit of public for widening the road, and for providing public amenities.
3. Petitioner has stated that he is resident of St.Vincent Colony, Asokapuram in Kasaba village, Kozhikode taluk, which is very close to National Highway 212 leading to Wayanad. According to the petitioner, Jawahar Nagar Housing Colony and St.Vincent Colony are two major residential colonies situated in the above locality. For the purpose of formation of colonies and roads, land was acquired by the Government, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 and the same was handed over to Calicut Development Authority, who, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Madras Town Planning Act , 1920, developed the land for formation of Jawahar Nagar Housing Colony.
4. Petitioner has further stated that apart from the internal colony roads, a separate road was laid connecting Christian College-Thiruthiyad Cross road and Rarichan road, as a part of the Housing Scheme and for the formation of the said road, private properties comprised in Town Survey Nos.706/1 and 700/3 were acquired. Besides, there was an existing public land comprised in T.S. No.712, which is situated adjacent to T.S.No.706. It is submitted that Calicut Development Authority has now become functus officio and the 2 nd respondent is now vested with the powers of the said authority. Now, the above said road vests with the Corporation of Kozhikode under Section 207 of the Municipality Act, 1994.
5. The issue raised by the petitioner is that Corporation of Kozhikode, respondent No.2, as per Exhibit-P2 resolution dated 6.7.2007 has decided to sell a portion of the property acquired for public road to respondents 3 to 5, and the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.1, has approved the same. According to the petitioner, the decision taken to sell the above said public property is tainted with malafides.
6. Petitioner has contended that Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 does not empower the 2 nd respondent to sell land appurtenant to the public road for reasoning whatsoever. According to him, the concept of vesting public roads on the 2 nd respondent does not mean absolute and unfettered right for sale of property which forms part of the road. He has further contended that land acquired for public purpose and earmarked for road development under Town Planning Schemes is not liable to be sold to individuals and that Town Planning Schemes are framed for development of urban areas.
7. In support of his contention, petitioner has relied on a decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Thalassery Municipality v. Puthalath Balakrishnan reported in 2019 (3) KLT 154 , wherein it is held as follows:
“9. A reading of the provisions of the Act, 2016 and the Municipality/Panchayat Building Rules indicates that the DTP Schemes prepared under the Act, 2016 are to have overriding effect over the provisions of the Building Rules . A
