P.P. Sivasankaran, P. Abdulshakkur, T.T. Koya and P. Mohammed Kutty vs State of Kerala

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.—In all these three cases the challenge is with regard to one and the same acquisition initiated for the purpose of formation of a Ring Road in Tirur Municipality. As such, I propose to dispose of the same through a common judgment after a joint hearing held today.

The petitioners have more or less the same contentions. It is pointed out that the present Notification made on 18/6/1998 deviates from the earlier stand of the Government to the Manager of the Nedungadi Bank Ltd., which is produced as Ext.P4 in O.P.No. 9320/99 filed by the same Bank that the Scheme would be implemented excluding the Bank building and other buildings; that there is colourful exercise of powers by the Government to suit the convenience of the some parties and that implementation of the Scheme, as notified, would affect many tenants of the buildings situated in the proposed alignment.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that it was based on requisition from the P.W.D. made on 21/6/1997 that formation of the ring road was taken up; that the correspondence aforementioned relied on by the petitioners was prior to the issuance of the Notification and that after the Notification was issued there has not been any change contemplated in the alignment. It is also pointed out that excepting the petitioners in these three cases, all the others affected, 31 in number, have already surrendered their properties pursuant to the Awards passed and that it is only the interim orders passed in these cases that stand in the way of implementation of the project contemplated right from 1997.

There is some controversy raised at the Bar with regard to the maintainability of the Original Petitioners initiated by the tenants of the buildings. However, I do not think it necessary to go into that aspect. Even assuming that the tenants have the locus standi, the material questions to be considered are whether there is colourful exercise of powers by the Government and whether the Court would be justified in interfering with the project initiated by the Government.

I find any considerable merit in the statement of the learned Government Pleader as also of the 5th respondent in O.P.No. 8705/97 that Ext.P4 in O.P.No. 9320/99 is not a material record that could be considered while considering the bona fides of the State behind the project and the acquisition. Section 4(1) Notification with regard to the acquisition in question was issued only on 18/6/1998 and the correspondence that took place between the Government and the petitioner in O.P.No. 9320/99 before the said date cannot have much impact. It is possible that after Ext.P4 many other aspects came under consideration and what is to be looked into is only whether the Government had a consistent case after the issuance of the Notification.

It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader based on the averments in para-4 of the counter filed in O.P.No. 8705/97 that though in the preliminary survey the ring road was proposed behind the building occupied by the petitioners in the Original Petition, it was noticed that such formation would divide the property of the landlord (5th respondent) into two divisions and also would result in demolition of his residential building. His objections were considered and in the joint inspection conducted on 16/4/97 and 22/7/97 it was discovered that the adaptation of the present alignment would avoid splitting up of his property and also save demolition of his building. It was noticed that the new alignment would result in lesser expense to the State in so far adopting the same would enable utilisation of an existing pathway of 2.5 mtrs. belonging to the Municipality.

When land is acquired for a public purpose in a Town, it would necessarily affect the possession and use of very many persons. If one alignment is shifted to another, there will be hue and cry from the persons affected by such alternative. No land acquisition would be possible without some protest from existing occupants of the land. What is revealed in the present there cases is only the difficulties projected by some persons. It is brought to my notice that as contended by the learned Government Pleader, the project has been delayed for over three years and by this time awards have been passed in respect of 31 items of land and the project would take shape only when the lands of the petitioners in these three cases are also taken over. This Court should not pose difficulties for materialisation of a project conceived in public interest. As far as the present petitioner in O.P.No. 9320/99 is concerned, it is brought out during hearing that the building situated in the land under acquisition is not used by the Bank for its operation in so far as the Bank was shifted to other premises. What is argued is only that if the alignment is changed, the Bank would be able to construct a new building. This cannot be a sufficient justification to stall the acquisition proceedings.

I am not at all convinced that there is any colourful exercise of powers by the Government or that there is any undue benefit extended to the landlord - 5th respondent though he has no objection to the acquisition in question. The interests of the public at large has necessarily to take its place above that of the private interests of the petitioners.

I find no merit in these Original Petitioners and they are dismissed.