A lawful acquisition process requires genuine public purpose justification and consideration of all representations from affected parties.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Diary Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969. The petitioner society is functioning in a building situated in 8 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.16/7 of Pambady village in Kottayam Taluk, which they had purchased in the year 1977. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent Panchayath had taken steps to acquire the said land and the building, on the premise that the land is required for providing access to the proposed 'Revenue Tower' to be constructed.

2. According to the petitioner, the public purpose pointed out for the proposed action is not genuine and bonafide. However, it is alleged that, even if the panchayath require any property for access to the site of the 'Revenue Tower', alternate routes are available. From Ext.P5 it is evident that the Panchayath had resolved to request to the Government to accord sanction for the proposed acquisition and to request the District Collector for fixation of the land value. It is evident that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation before the District Collector as per Ext.P7. Inter alia, the petitioner is seeking direction for a consideration and disposal of the said representation.

2. Inspite of service of notice from this court, nobody enters appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent Panchayath. I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the District Collector to consider Ext.P7 and to take appropriate decision regarding necessity of the acquisition, before proceedings with any further steps on the basis of the resolution passed by the 1st respondent Panchayath.

3. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and to take a decision thereon, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the representative of the 1st respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. It is made clear that the challenge raised by the petitioner against rejection of the application for building permit is left open for agitation. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the matter in appropriate proceedings.