Pius C. Kuriakose, J.@mdashThese writ petitions are filed by owners of land in Thaliparamba Village being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated
at the instance of the Thaliparamba Municipality for acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a new sophisticated bus stand and auto,
taxi, lorry stand and vegetable market. It is substantially the same allegations which are raised in all these petitions and the prayers are also
substantially the same. I therefore propose to advert to the pleadings in WP(C) No. 21575 of 2008 only. The respondents in this writ petition are
the State of Kerala (R1), the Special Tahsildar (LA) (R2), District Collector, Kannur (R3), Thaliparamba Municipality (R4), Chairman of the
Thaliparamba Municipality (R5) and the Land Revenue Commissioner (R6).
2. Ext.P1 produced along with the writ petition is copy of the proceedings dated 17-2-2006 issued by the Government according administrative
sanction for acquiring the properties in question under the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Ext.P2 is the combined notification
dated 13-4-2007 issued u/s 4(1) read with Section 17(4). Ext.P3 is copy of the judgment of this Court by which this Court directed conduct of an
enquiry u/s 5A. It is alleged that without conducting a proper enquiry as contemplated u/s 5A, declaration u/s 6 has been issued. Ext.P4 is the copy
of the declaration u/s 6 issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Ext.P5 is the judgment of this Court in WP(C). 17605/08 filed by the
petitioner reserving the petitioner''s right to challenge the declaration u/s 6 on all available grounds. The petitioner submits that a large portion of his
properties is paddy field. Petitioner refers to the Kerala Protection of Paddy Fields and Water Course Act, 2007 and submits that the policy of the
Government is not to acquire paddy fields. It is contended that the present acquisition proceedings is actuated by mala fides and extraneous
considerations. According to the petitioner, there is no public purpose justifying the acquisition of the land of the petitioner as proposed. The
proposed bus stand will be the 4th one in Thaliparamba Municipality. It was only on 30-11-2006 that the existing third bus stand was renovated
with shopping complex in an extent of 1.4 acres of land. This third bus stand is hardly 500 metres away from the land proposed to be acquired.
Some 200 kms. Away from the above third bus stand there is another bus stand by name Kakkathode bus stand which has an extent of 1.5 acres.
At some distance away from that bus stand exists another bus stand at Parasinikkadavu. Petitioner submits that the traffic in Thaliparamba Town is
not so dense warranting construction of a fourth bus stand. Petitioner claims that he is an octogenarian aged 85 years. He has produced as Ext.P6
true copy of plan detailing the nature and lie of his landed properties. Petitioner''s tarwad house was constructed 200 years ago. It was renovated
in 1967 and was reconstructed in the year 2003. Ext.P7 copy of building permit is relied on in this context. Petitioner submits that on the strength
of Ext.P8 another building permit he constructed building having door No. 869A-TMC XIII in 1962 which was renovated after obtaining permit.
He has produced Ext.P9 by which Municipality permitted him to construct additional plinth area of 73 M2. It is submitted that under Ext.P2
notification an extent of 3.7308 hectares of land (9.2375 Acres) are to be acquired. Since petitioner is unaware of the proposal by the
Thaliparamba Municipality as regards the plan, alignment, estimate, necessity of having new bus stand the petitioner submitted Ext.P10
representation seeking relevant information. It is submitted that no reply has been given to the petitioner to Ext.P10. Petitioner has produced
Ext.P11 true copy of the agenda pertaining to the resolution adopted by the Municipality (resolution No. 14) to acquire 10.07 acres of land. The
petitioner submits that the resolution was forwarded to the Government and the Government accepted resolution and accorded sanction to the
Municipality to acquire and take advance possession of 10.07 acres of land mentioned in the resolution. Petitioner complains that neither the
Government Order nor the resolution of the Municipality has been communicated to him despite request. The petitioner points out that 80% of the
Councillors in the Thaliparamba Municipal Council owed their allegiance to Communist Party of India (M) which is the leading partner in the left
democratic front. Some of the land owners who were likely to be dispossessed and are active workers of CPI (M). They in confabulation with the
local MLA and other political leaders exerted influence over the councillors to see that their lands are exempted from the purview of acquisition
proceedings. It is alleged that the council on 29-7-2005 resolved to review earlier decision dated 22-2-2003 and decided to exempt certain items
of lands. It is submitted that the above decision was taken overruling the objection raised by 11 councillors. 159.25 cents of land belonging to
persons named in the writ petition were thus exempted. It is said that by the same resolution it was resolved to include total extent of 75 cents
inclusive of 12.37 cents of land belonging to the petitioner in the acquisition. Exts.P12 and P12(a) are true copies of the notice dated 23-7-2005
and the resolution dated 29-7-2005. It is alleged that the Chairman of the Thaliparamba Municipality with the connivance of the local MLA and by
exerting influence over officers in the Local Self Government Department to get the proposal contained in Ext.P12 proceeding approved. It is
pointed out in this manner that the Local Administration Department is controlled by CPI(M) Minister and accordingly revised order has been
passed by the Government according sanction to the Municipality to acquire 25.5 cents of land with two residential building belonging to the
petitioner. It is submitted that the Municipal Council in its meeting held on 7-3-2006 endorsed Ext.P1 order and resolved to acquire land including
those of the petitioner by invoking urgency provision. Ext.P13 is copy of the agenda. Ext.P2 notification was issued close on the heels of Ext.P13.
Petitioner submitted Ext.P14 representation to the Tahsildar and the District Collector seeking exemption of his land from the acquisition. Ext.P14
was returned by the Tahsildar to the petitioner stating that exemption is to be ordered only by the requisitioning authority. Ext.P15 is the
proceedings of the Tahsildar. By Ext.P16 notice issued in form No. 4(b) it is ordered to take possession of the petitioner''s land. Exts. P17. 81, 19
and 20 are copies of the objections raised by affected parties published in the local dailies making the unscientific approach and malafides tainting
the municipal action. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment the acquisition proceeded under the ordinary provisions and the petitioner
submitted Ext.P21 objection raising serious objections. In the enquiry the petitioner sought to adduce oral and documentary evidence and for that
purpose filed a list of witnesses who are government officials along with a petition to issue summons to the witnesses. The petition was rejected by
two word order ""not allowed"" scribbled on the petition itself. Ext.P22 is copy of the petition. It is alleged that no proper enquiry was held as
regards public purpose and necessity to have a 4th bus stand and the suitability of the land for the purpose. The petitioner further alleged that
though the petitioner wanted to have a copy of the report prepared by the L.A. officer overruling the objections filed by him, he is yet to be served
with a copy. The petitioner points out that the newly renovated bus stand inaugurated on 30-11-2006 in Thaliparamba Municipality is adjacent to
the highway. The said bus stand was constructed by utilizing the funds allotted under the IDSMT Scheme by the State as well as Central
Government. Ext.P23 is a true extract of the budget presentation of the Municipality for the years 2002-03 and 2003 -04. It will show that by
utilizing the fund the existing bus stand in the heart of the Thaliparamba Town was renovated and major chunks of the funds were utilized for
constructing shopping complex numbering 37 shops and 8 halls in the renovated bus stand. It is submitted that these shops and halls were
auctioned to the business community by accepting nearly Rs. 25 lakhs each from them. It is alleged that the dominant intention of the Municipality is
to advance private entrepreneurship and not to promote large public interest. At a distance of less than 100 metres another shopping complex at
Market Road is being set up and the construction is being completed. Yet another shopping complex at Dharmasala estimating Rs. 60 lakhs is
hearing completion. Ext.P24 is the extract of the budgetary provision regarding this. Ext.P25 copy of the budgetary provision for the Municipality
for the year 2007-08 is produced and it is highlighted that the total amount provided for the proposed acquisition and the construction of the
project is only Rs. 4.5 crores. This amount, petitioner alleges will not be sufficient to pay even the compensation for 1 acre of land to be acquired.
The petitioner submits that most of the lands proposed to be acquired are paddy fields which are quite unsuitable for the construction of bus stand
and shopping complex. It is submitted that heavy expenditure will have to be incurred for converting the land as building site. The petitioner points
out the existence of other lands which can be utilized for expansion of the existing bus stand rather than constructing a brand new bus stand as now
proposed. The petitioner points out that there are lands available in the Municipality to freely acquire for the purpose of vegetable market. On
these averments petitioner has raised several grounds and filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1, P2, and P4. Ext.P4 is
the declaration u/s 6.
3. Counter affidavits raising identical contentions have been filed by the Municipality in all these cases. The Secretary of the Municipality denies all
the allegations in the writ petitions and refutes the grounds raised therein. According to the counter affidavit there is no illegality or irregularity in the
order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner accepting the report submitted by the L.A. Officer on the objections filed by the land owners in
the 5A enquiry to the acquisition. It is submitted that the application Ext.P8 submitted before the LA Officer is not maintainable in as much as it has
been filed by the petitioner for adducing evidence in the 5A enquiry. Section 5A enquiry is not to be treated as regular civil proceedings before a
civil court. If the objector wants to adduce evidence, it is for the objector to produce evidence. The order passed by the LA Officer rejecting
Ext.P8 request is legal and valid since P8 was filed without bonafides. It is alleged that Ext.P8 was filed with the oblique motive to protract and to
frustrate the land acquisition proceedings in toto. It is pointed out that as per the direction of this Court 5A enquiry will be confined to the
petitioners and the petitioners were given two weeks time to raise all the objections and the L.A. Officer was directed to consider and dispose of
those objections in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the objections. Petitioners submitted their objections on 13-4-
2008 and they were issued with notice to appear before the authority on 29-4-2008 for 5A enquiry. On that day though the petitioners appeared
through their advocate, they did not adduce any evidence. As per Rule 8 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 it is up to the objector to
adduce evidence in support of the objections. Nobody objected in giving oral evidence by the objector. But what the petitioners did was to
protract the matter by seeking adjournment. As per their request hearing was adjourned to 8-5-2008. On that day also they did not adduce any
evidence. On 8-5-08 the petitioners filed a long witness list requiring the land acquisition officer to issue notices to them to appear before the
authority with documents required by the objector and to give evidence in the enquiry. This was thoroughly without any bonafides. The petitioners
objectors are not entitled to insist for issuing summons to witnesses when they refused to adduce any evidence despite ample opportunities given to
them. The intention of the petitioners is only to protract the matter and to frustrate the L.A. proceedings. The delay in finalizing the land acquisition
proceedings would be totally against public interest. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that Thaliparamba Municipality is a fast developing
municipality, but lacking in sufficient infrastructure for its necessary developments, civic amenities, transportation facilities etc. Thaliparamba is the
head quarter of Thaliparamba Taluk. The total population of Thaliparamba Muanicipality is 67441 as per 2001 census and the total area is 43.36
sq. kms. Daily more than 450 buses are conducting services through this town. About 100 taxies, 500 autorikshaws, 150 lorries, mini lorries,
tempos etc. in addition to many jeeps and other transport vehicles are conducting their daily services in this town. The existing town bus stand is
not sufficient to accommodate all the buses. It can only accommodate 21 buses at a time. Kakkathode Mini stand has only 1.4 acres of land and is
now used for parking of private buses originating from Thaliparamba. Since there is one temple, one mosque and one hospital near this bus stand,
further expansion of this stand is not possible. There have been several complaints and representations from various authorities to make adequate
facilities for parking taxies, autorikshaws etc. in Thaliparamba Town. Different individuals, associations, merchant associations etc. preferred writ
petitions before the High Court of Kerala on different occasions against the illegal parking and non- availability of parking facilities in Thaliparamba
Town. One of such representations /complaints submitted by Thaliparamba Merchant Association dated 29-6-2003 is produced as Ext.R4(a).
There have been directions from this Court to find substitute parking facilities to taxies in O.P. No. 23240/02, WP(C) No. 34053/03, WP(C) No.
26402/05, WP(C) No. 15591/05 etc. R4(b) is the copy of judgment in O.P. No. 23240/02. R4(c) is the copy of judgment in WP(C) No.
34053/03. R4(d) is the copy of judgment WP(C). No. 26402/05. R4(e) is the copy of the judgment in WP(C). No. 15591/05. Under these
circumstances there is no other alternative for the Municipality to find out some spacious and convenient area for parking space and to request the
Government for acquisition of such property for the use of the Municipality for the aforesaid purpose. To accommodate all the buses touching
Thaliparamba and all the other vehicles mentioned already, a new sophisticated bus stand and auto, taxi, lorry stand with all modern facilities with
abundant parking area is absolutely essential. The counter affidavit proceeds to contend that the Municipality does not have a vegetable market.
This is also causing severe inconvenience to residents and taxpayers of the Municipality. A convenient vegetable market with sufficient access is
also a dire need of the Municipality. This was why the proceedings have now been initiated for acquisition. The counter affidavit stoutly denies the
allegation of malafides attributed. All the grounds raised in the writ petition are also dealt with detail and denied strongly. It is contended ultimately
that the grounds taken up in the writ petition are all unsustainable in law and the need of the Municipality is a dire need and that the proposed
acquisition would cause only minimum inconvenience to the land owners.
4. On behalf of the land acquisition officer counter affidavit has been filed in WP(C) No. 21575 of 2008 and a memo adopting this counter
affidavit has been filed in the other writ petitions also. According to this counter affidavit 5A enquiry was conducted by the L.A. Officer after giving
sufficient opportunities to the objectors to establish their case and and the enquiry was concluded and the report was forwarded to the competent
authority. Everything has been done strictly in accordance with the rules. Ample opportunity was given to the petitioners for adducing evidence.
L.A. Officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and the report was forwarded to the competent authority for issuing a declaration u/s
6. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that none of the property owners except a few have challenged the acquisition proceedings. The entire
acquisition proceedings involve about 9 acres of land. In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners this Court quashed the emergency clause
and directed to conduct 5A enquiry. Thaliparamba Municipality lacks sufficient infrastructure for its necessary developments, civic amenities,
transportation facilities etc. More than 450 buses are conducting services through this town. This counter affidavit endorses the stand taken by the
Municipal Secretary in his counter affidavit and submits that the purpose is a genuine public purpose and the need of the Municipality is a genuine
need. It is also pointed out in this counter affidavit that on the basis of the report submitted by the land acquisition officer in the 5A enquiry the
Land Revenue Commissioner has passed declaration u/s 6. The proceedings are now going on and at this stage interference by this Court will ruin
the entire project.
5. Very extensive submissions were addressed before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions, viz., Mr. P.V. Mohanan,
learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 21575 of 2008, Sri. V.T. Madhavanunni, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.
22405 of 2008, Sri. Mohan Pulickal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 21506 of 2008 and Sri. Abilash K.N., learned Counsel for
the petitioner in WP(C) No. 23111 of 2008.
6. The submissions of the learned Counsel for petitioners were founded on the grounds raised in the writ petitions filed by them and the various
documents placed on record by them. My attention was drawn by the learned Counsel to the statutory provision including the relevant rules dealing
with conduct of 5A enquiry by the land acquisition authority. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners would be met to a very
considerable extent by Mr. P.V. Surendranath, learned standing counsel for the Municipality who would argue forcefully that the public nature of
the purpose of the acquisition cannot be serious dispute. The submissions of Mr. Surendranath were supported by the learned Senior Govt.
Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar I am of the view that the land acquisition officer was justified in
rejecting the applications submitted by some of the petitioners seeking issuance of summons to the witnesses mentioned in the witness list which
they had submitted in the enquiry u/s 5A. At the same time I feel that the petitioners did not get an effective opportunity for raising their arguments
upon conclusion of the enquiry u/s 5A by the land acquisition officer. I would have ordinarily directed the land acquisition officer to hear the
petitioners once again before he submits his report incorporating his recommendations regarding the objections raised by the petitioners to the
Land Revenue Commissioner. But he has already submitted his recommendations before the Land Revenue Commissioner and those
recommendations have been accepted by the Land Revenue Commissioner leading to the promulgation of the declaration u/s 6. In the above
circumstances in order to reduce the delay I am inclined to direct the Land Revenue Commissioner to reconsider his decision to accept the
recommendations of the L.A. Officer after hearing all the petitioners. It will be open to the petitioners to urge the various grounds they have raised
in these writ petitions before the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Land Revenue Commissioner will pass fresh orders after the hearing is over.
The declaration already passed u/s 6 will naturally stands set aside and promulgation of a declaration u/s 6 afresh will depend on the fresh decision
taken by the Land Revenue Commissioner.
7. The result is that all these writ petitions will stand allowed to the following limited extent:
The order of the Land Revenue Commissioner on the recommendations forwarded by the land acquisition officer regarding the objections raised
by the various petitioners to the acquisition of their lands and the consequent declaration u/s 6 are set aside. Land Revenue Commissioner is
directed to take a fresh decision on the question whether the recommendations forwarded to him by the land acquisition officer should be accepted
after hearing the petitioners in all these writ petitions. Hearing will be conducted and fresh decision will be taken by the Land Revenue
Commissioner at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. Transmit a copy of this judgment to the Land
Revenue Commissioner forthwith.
In order that the relief given as above to the petitioners is more meaningful the L.A. Officer is directed to issue copies of the report submitted by
him to the Land Revenue Commissioner, if applications are given by them in that regard.
The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.