The court mandated a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study due to procedural lapses and inadequate publication of reports, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements in land acquisition processes.

JUDGMENT

In W.P.(C)No.26501 of 2022, the petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P7 and P8, which are the alignment sketch, Social Impact Assessment Study report and recommendation of the Expert Group respectively and in W.P.(C)No.27368 of 2022, the very same orders are under challenge.

2. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners are occupying buildings in the property within the proposed alignment plan for the development of Mitchel junction. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the alignment finalised as per Ext.P3 is erroneous and it does not tally with the geographical features and the acquisition of property is quite disproportionate and the sketch lacks the real picture of the Mitchel junction and its premises and that the alignment sketch is prepared by people who have no acquaintance with the locality, without conducting the scale survey and they have not applied their mind while preparing the alignment sketch. A Social Impact Assessment Study Team was engaged to conduct a study and thereafter Ext.P7 Social Impact Assessment Study Report was submitted and the same was appraised by the Expert Group and submitted Ext.P8 report. It is the case of the petitioners that no proper study was conducted and the report is totally erroneous and that the Expert Group, who are bound to study into the recommendations in Ext.P7 Social Impact Assessment Study Report, has not gone into the same. Yet another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Social impact Assessment Study Report submitted as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.26501 of 2022 and Ext.P8 report of the Expert Group was not published as provided in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013') and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Kerala) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2015'). Yet another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that though the Social Impact Assessment Study was conducted in respect of 38 Ares (93 cents) of land, now what is sought to be acquired is 133 cents of land and for the balance extent of land, no Social Impact Assessment Study has been conducted. The petitioners would contend that a bypass road is in existence which is only 70 metres away from the proposed site and that by the existence of the bypass nearby, the above said development in the Mitchel junction is absolutely unnecessary. The petitioners would further contend that as per Section 4 of the Act, 2013, a Social Impact Assessment Study is to be conducted and going by (4), one of the important aspect to be taken into consideration while conducting such study is the extent of land likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition and whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare- minimum extent needed for the project and whether the land acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit based on Section 6 of the Act, 2013 that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the Social Impact Assessment study report and the Social Impact Management Plan are prepared and made available in the local language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tahsi