Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37349
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
FOUSIA A K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 5626/2019
Land acquisition must respect legal processes, specifically requiring valid notifications under relevant statutes to protect landowners' rights.
Headnote:
Compulsory Acquisition - Land Rights - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court emphasized the necessity of a valid notification for land acquisition, ensuring adherence to lawful procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners alleged that the 4th respondent unlawfully excavated their neighbor's property for road widening without proper notification or legal authority, fearing similar actions against their own property.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed that any acquisition of petitioners' properties for road widening must follow due legal process under relevant statutes, ensuring compliance and accountability from officials involved.
Issues: Whether the respondents can acquire the petitioners' properties for road widening without adhering to compulsory acquisition laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that any acquisition must follow the procedures laid out in the relevant land acquisition laws to ensure protection of landowners' rights.
Final Decision: The court ordered compliance with legal procedures for any land acquisition by the respondents.
J U D G M E N T
The specific case of the petitioner is that some of the respondents concerned more particularly the 4th respondent had unlawfully entered into the property of a neighbour of the petitioners and with the use of JCB had removed the earth and excavation work from the construction of a retaining wall in the property of the neighbour of the petitioners and even plantains and cultivations have been destroyed and it has been informed that the said action was done by the 4th respondent for the purpose of widening of a road unlawfully and without issuance of any notification under any law regulating the subject of compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioners apprehend that the some of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent may repeat the same unlawful activity in relation to their properties as well and that under the guise of widening of road, the 4th respondent and his men may forcibly and unlawfully take over and acquire the properties of the petitioners for widening of said road. The petitioners would state that they are fully willing to co-operate with the process of widening of road, and if their lands are to be acquired for that purpose, they are not willing to give the land on free surrender basis and that their properties can be acquired by the respondents only by setting in motion due proceedings under valid laws like The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking appropriate prayers.
2. Heard Sri.P.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Taking note of the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the cases, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case any or all of the respondents intend to acquire or take over the properties of the petitioners within their title and possession, then they can do so only after issuance of a valid notification under a valid law for regulating the subject of compulsory acquisition of land, for acquiring the properties of the petitioners for any purposes including that for widening of the road. Taking note of the specific averments of the petitioners that the property of their neighbour has been unlawfully taken over by the 4th respondent for the abovesaid purpose of widening of road, it is also ordered as follows.
The 2nd respondent District Collector will ensure that the aforesaid directions issued by this Court is complied with by all the respondent officials concerned within his District, more particularly respondents 3 & 4, in letter and spirit. This Court would so say because quite a few cases have come to the notice of this Court, where directions of similar nature have been issued are seen to have been breached by some of the authorities concerned. If there is any non compliance of the directions issued in this regard, the matter will be viewed very seriously and it will be at the risk of the officers who venture to take such steps.
4. Further it is also ordered that the 2nd respondent District Collector, Wayanad will immediately call for a report from the 4th respondent Executive Engineer, as to whether he has taken steps to take over or acquire property of the neighbour of the petitioners for the purpose of widening of road and if so whether it as been done after following the due process of compulsory acquisition of land under relevant statutes.
With these observations and directions the above WP(C)s will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5557/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DT. 03-05-18 W.R.TO 04.05 ARE, IN RE-SY.NO.518/78 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY, COMPOUND WALL, AND ROAD EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED.5-12-
18, BEARING NO.A2/RTI/3832/2018 RECEIVED BY A
