Deprivation of property requires adherence to legal procedures and compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution; unilateral declarations by local authorities without due process lack legal standing.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P13 notification issued pursuant to the ecological and social impact assessment study conducted by Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, wherein the petitioner’s property comprised in Sy.No.443/1 of Chellanam Village has been described as “Xavier Desam Road”, treating it as a Panchayat road.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner in possession of 8.5 cents of land in Sy.No.155/2 (Re-Sy.No.443/1), Chellanam Village, as evidenced by Ext.P1 tax receipt and title documents. According to him, at the time of construction of the Chellanam Harbour, a portion of his property measuring 428 links in length and 18 links in width was taken over by the Panchayat for the formation of an access road. Though acquisition proceedings were proposed, they were not completed, and the land was taken only on the basis of permission and mutual understanding, with an assurance that compensation would be paid.

3. It is stated that the Tahsildar had convened a meeting on 04.05.2015 directing the petitioner and other land owners to produce relevant documents for completing acquisition formalities and payment of compensation. The petitioner accordingly produced copies of the title deed and tax receipts. However, when he later approached the Village Office to remit land tax, he was not permitted to do so on the ground that the property had already been included in the Panchayat Asset Register and recorded as a Panchayat road, without his knowledge or consent.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a complaint. On enquiry, the Secretary of the Panchayat reported, as per Ext.P5, that the property forms part of “Xavier Desam Road” and stands included in the Asset Register of the Panchayat. Subsequently, the District Collector initiated acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’) and appointed a Special Tahsildar for the purpose. Public notice was issued, wherein the petitioner was shown as the owner of the property. The Social Impact Assessment hearing was conducted, in which the petitioner participated, and the report also recorded him as the land owner and recommended the land as eligible for compensation.

5. However, later, Ext.P13 notification issued under Rule 18(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Kerala) Rules, 2015 (for short ‘the Rules’) described the very same property as “Xavier Desam Road – Panchayat Road”. When the petitioner again approached the authorities for acceptance of tax, the Tahsildar sought clarification from the Panchayat. In response, the Panchayat, by communication dated 27.10.2018 (Ext.P15), admitted that the land belonged to the petitioner and that possession had been taken only on the basis of mutual understanding for the construction of the harbour road.

6. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P13, contending that his private property cannot be unilaterally treated as a Panchayat road without acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation. In this regard it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2022 KHC 6383] the Apex Court held that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right (Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, it