The court reiterated that claims of discrimination in land acquisition must be substantiated and upheld the government's authority to acquire land while addressing exemptions.

J U D G M E N T

A.Muhamed Mustaque & Harisankar V. Menon, JJ The petitioners in W.P(C) No.7161 of 2013 have filed this intra-court appeal, seeking to challenge the judgment dated

26.05.2025 of a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The 1st appellant is stated to be a Charitable Trust, and the 2^nd appellant is one of the Trustees. The Trust is running a school having affiliation with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The Government proposed to acquire around 732 Acres of land for setting up Technocity under the Technopark. Pursuant to certain representations made, not to include some of the properties in the acquisition steps, Ext.P3 order was issued, granting permission for the acquisition of 507 Acres alone for the purpose noted above. Ext.P4 is the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short), followed by the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act at Ext.P5. The appellants contend that it was during the pendency of an application submitted, seeking an exemption from the acquisition steps, that all the afore proceedings were issued. Ultimately, by Ext.P13, the 1^st respondent sought to reject the prayer for exemption by the appellants. In a writ petition filed against Ext.P13 order, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P15 judgment in W.P(C) No.32628 of 2010, noticing that a different treatment has been effected with respect to a similarly situated institution, set aside Ext.P13, directing fresh consideration. The Government Order referred to by this Court while rendering Ext.P15 judgment as above is the one at Ext.P16 dated 04.05.2011. The afore order is one in respect of a prayer made by the Latin Archdiocese of Trivandrum, the Government deciding to exempt the properties concerned from the land acquisition proceedings for Technocity. The appellants contend that in spite of the afore direction, Ext.P17 has been issued by the Government refusing to extend any exemption mainly on account of the stand taken by the Technopark to the effect that if the benefit of exemption is extended, the adjoining acquired properties would remain as isolated parcels of land detrimental to the project itself. The Government also took note of the fact that possession has already been handed over to the Technopark, the transfer of registry has been effected, and basic tax has also been paid by Technopark with respect to the properties in question.

3. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P17 issued by the Government as above that W.P(C) No.7161 of 2013 was instituted. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that if the exemption is extended to the properties in question, it would result in formation of isolated parcels of land in the project area; this being a question of fact does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the reasons stated for rejecting the claim in Ext.P17 order, especially with reference to the exemption granted to Latin Arch Diocese of Thiruvananthapuram, cannot be termed to be irrational or perverse, that the properties sought to be exempted from acquisition is not the playground of the school as contended and therefore, dismissed the writ petition.

4. It is seeking to challenge the afore judgment, that this intra-court appeal is presented.

5. Heard Sri.K.T.Thomas, the learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Smt.Rashmi K.V., the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader, Smt.Sudhadevi.

6. On 12.08.2025, considering the contention raised before us that in spite of an award being passed, no possession was taken, even on the face of the Mahazar produced by the learned Government Pleader, which shows that the possession was taken on 12.08.2010, we appointed an Advocate Commissioner to report as to the “present status, the nature and lie of the property”. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a detailed report dated 25.08.2025, also with referen