Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
A. Saraswathi – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC) – Respondent
WP(C) 37150/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not provided
For the Respondents: Not provided
Court held that petitioners can raise issues regarding property identity and compensation under new land acquisition laws.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acquisition of land for public purpose - Petitioners challenged acquisition claiming their property was not included - Court noted that the petitioners can raise their contentions under the new Act if necessary. (Paras 3, 8, 9)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review in land acquisition matters - Court held that issues of compensation and identity of property can be agitated in accordance with law under the new Act. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed that their property was not included in the land acquisition for the establishment of a Life Science Park, while the Government contended it was part of the acquisition.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that compensation had not been deposited as the petitioners were not dispossessed and granted time for them to vacate.
Issues: The main issues included the identity of the property and compliance with the new Act regarding compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that all contentions regarding the property and compensation can be raised under the new Act, reaffirming the importance of legal procedures in land acquisition.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquisition process initiated for public purpose. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over property identity and acquisition validity. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on prior proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court allows petitioners to raise compensation issues. (Para 8) |
| 5. writ petitions disposed with directions for compliance. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be the owners of 2.90 Hectares in Resurvey No.181/2-71, Block No.3 of Veiloor Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. For the purpose of acquisition for the establishment of Life Science Park by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC), the 4th respondent, Section 4 (1) notification was issued on 02.06.2008, which was published in the Gazette on 22.07.2008 and published in the locality on 26.11.2008. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , was made on 23.11.2009.
2. Writ petition No.4645 of 2010 was filed by A. Saraswathi, wife of one late P. Bhargavan and the writ petitioners herein challenging the Section 4 (1) notification and also Section 6 declaration made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The writ petition was dismissed along with a batch of cases on 20.05.2015 through Ext.P5 judgment. A writ appeal filed was also dismissed through Ext.R4(b) judgment. Some of the land owners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition which was disposed of on 06.01.2017 directing to conduct negotiations with all the land owners. Writ petition No.15942 of 2017 and 16113 of 2017, directed the passing of awards only after the negotiation was completed and the award in the instant case was passed on 09.11.2017.
3. The grievance of the present writ petition is that the petitioners' property having an extent of 2.90 Hectares in Resurvey No.181/2-71, Block No.3 of Veiloor Village was not acquired for the purpose of establishment of Life Science Park by the 4th respondent. It is also stated that no award was passed till 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 30 of 2013) and therefore all actions taken under the erstwhile Act are invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents produced in the writ petition clearly show that their property was not part of the acquisition and the property in Thandapper Account No.2083 belonging to diseased Padmanabhan Bhargavan was acquired and not the property belonging to the petitioners in Resurvey No.181/2-71. It is also stated that the property belonging to the petitioners was given a new Resurvey No.182/2-71 and with a new Thandapper Account No.9669 as seen from Ext.P11. The Thandapper Account No.9669 was created in the name of A. Saraswathy on 28.04.2006. It is stated that Padmanabhan Bhargavan died in the year 1982. Thus the petitioners' case is that the properties covered under Resurvey No.181/2-71 are not notified for acquisition.
4. The Government has filed an additional counter affidavit on 21.06.2023 stating that the acquired property belonged to one Padmanabhan Bhargavan, the predecessor-in- interest of the writ petitioners. It is stated that the said Padmanabhan Bhargavan had properties in Resurvey No.181/2- 71, Block No.3 of Veiloor Village, Thiruvananthapuram District as per Thandapper Account No.2083. As per the basic tax register of Veiloor Village, late Padmanabhan Bhargavan was in possession of 8.6228 hectares of land. After his death, his wife A.Saraswathy got 2.90 hectares of land as one of the legal heirs. At that time, a new sub-division was created for this 2.90 hectares of land as 181/2-71 for the purpose of mutation and also for collection of land tax.
5. It is stated that for the acquisition in question from survey No. 181/2 and a new LA subdivision was created as 181/15, out of which 2.1550 hectares of land were acquired. The Government also conte
