Expert Group Must Include Local Body Reps From All Affected Areas, Not Just One: Kerala HC on LARR Act, 2013 - 2025-04-27

Kerala High Court Quashes Land Acquisition Proceedings, Cites Flawed Social Impact Assessment and Expert Group Constitution

Kochi: In a significant ruling emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013), the High Court of Kerala has set aside land acquisition proceedings concerning properties belonging to petitioners challenging a road widening project in Kannur .

Justice T.R. Ravi , presiding over the case of C. Lajith vs State of Kerala , held that the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study conducted was not exhaustive and, crucially, the Expert Group formed to appraise the report was not constituted in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Act, lacking representation from all affected local self-government institutions.

The petitioners, owners of properties, buildings, and businesses in Puthiyatheru , Kannur , challenged the acquisition process initiated for widening a portion of NH 66. They argued that the proposed widening to 22-34 metres would severely impact numerous commercial establishments and livelihoods, suggesting an alternative width of 17 metres.

Their primary legal challenges centred on alleged procedural irregularities under the LARR Act, 2013, including: 1. A conflict between Rule 18(1) of the Kerala Rules, 2015, which specifies a 15-day limit for filing objections in Form 7, and Section 15 of the LARR Act, 2013, which provides 60 days for objections regarding the area, suitability, public purpose justification, and SIA findings. 2. Flaws in the SIA study (Ext.P5), alleging it was not comprehensive or based on a proper survey of affected plots, owners, tenants, and employees, with significant discrepancies in data presented. 3. Illegal constitution of the Expert Group (Ext.P6), arguing it failed to include representatives from all affected local self-government institutions ( Valapattanam and Chirakkal Panchayats) as mandated by Section 7(2)(b) of the Act, having only representatives from the Kannur Corporation. 4. Challenging subsequent government orders (Ext.P7) and the preliminary notification under Section 11 (Ext.P9) based on these flawed antecedent steps.

The respondents, including the State and the Kerala Road Fund Board, countered that the road design was based on expert specifications (IRC norms), a hearing was granted to the petitioners, and the importance of the road persists. They justified the inclusion of only Corporation representatives in the Expert Group stating that the major portion of land acquisition was within the Corporation limits and the Committee strength was limited to seven members. They also attributed the sample nature of the SIA study to non-cooperation from affected parties and argued that the objection periods under Rule 18 and Section 15 relate to different matters.

The Court, referencing Supreme Court judgments in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass and Vidya Devi v. State of H.P , highlighted the transition from the expropriatory Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the LARR Act, 2013, which mandates a humane, participatory, and transparent process. It underscored that strict adherence to procedure is essential for compulsory acquisition and violation would vitiate the process.

Regarding the objection period, the Court clarified that Rule 18 pertains to objections concerning updating land records/title and the 15-day period in Form 7 applies to this. However, Section 15 specifically grants 60 days for objections on suitability, public purpose justification, and SIA findings. The Court found that the Rules lack a specific procedure for the Section 15 hearing but stressed that the statutory 60-day period cannot be curtailed by notices issued for other purposes. While noting that a hearing did take place in this specific case following a previous court order, the Court directed the State to actively consider laying down a clear procedure for Section 15 hearings, ensuring the mandated 60-day period for objections.

On the constitution of the Expert Group under Section 7(2)(b), the Court found the respondents' justification unacceptable. It interpreted the phrase "two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be" to mean that representatives from each of the local self-government institutions within whose jurisdiction land is being acquired must be included. The inclusion of only Corporation representatives when acquisition spans Panchayats as well constitutes a violation of the statute and defeats the purpose of local representation in the appraisal process.

Furthermore, the Court found the SIA study itself deficient. Identifying only 406 out of 1191 plots involved (approximately one-third) and calling it a completed study was deemed neither exhaustive nor comprehensive as required by Section 4 of the Act. The respondents' claim of non-cooperation was not accepted as a valid excuse for failing to identify all affected properties and persons.

In light of these fundamental procedural lapses concerning the SIA and the constitution of the Expert Group , the Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on other technical aspects like road width or drainage design at this stage. The Court also distinguished the present case from older precedents under the 1894 Act, noting the significantly altered landscape of acquisition law under the 2013 Act.

Consequently, the Court partly allowed the writ petitions. Ext.P14 series orders (rejecting objections), Ext.P6 ( Expert Group recommendation), Ext.P7 (Government Order accepting the report), and Ext.P9 (Section 11 notification) were set aside insofar as they relate to the petitioners' properties . The respondents have been directed to constitute an Expert Group strictly in compliance with Section 7 of the LARR Act, 2013, conduct the required studies, and then proceed with further acquisition steps in accordance with the law. The State was also asked to consider formalizing a procedure for Section 15 hearings consistent with the 60-day objection period.

This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of key procedural steps like comprehensive SIA and properly constituted Expert Group appraisal under the LARR Act, 2013, emphasizing the importance of local stakeholder representation in the process.