High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of
Gevargheese Yohannan v. State of Kerala and The District Collector, Kollam
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Muhammed Mustaque
- Judgment Date
- 2019-03-25
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petitions are disposed of directing the Government to consider the petitioners’ request for the return of the land within three months after hearing the petitioners, including whether the entire compensation received along with interest should be refunded. The absence of a statutory provision for land return under the repealed Act is acknowledged, but the Government is to decide the issue in light of prior judgments.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed of
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Gevargheese Yohannan
- Aliyamma Thankachan
- K.O. Mathew Panicker
Respondents
- State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001
- The District Collector, Kollam District - 691013
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Gevargheese Yohannan: James Abraham (Vilayakkattu), P. Balan (Vyttila)
- • Aliyamma Thankachan: James Abraham (Vilayakkattu)
- • K.O. Mathew Panicker: Sarah Salvy
Counsels for Respondents
- • State of Kerala: AC Vidya GP
- • District Collector, Kollam: AC Vidya GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
These consolidated writ petitions challenge land acquisitions made in 1994 for the Mulavana Distributory project in Kollam district. The petitioners—Gevargheese Yohannan, Aliyamma Thankachan, and K.O. Mathew Panicker—seek the return of their lands on the ground that the project was abandoned and there is no ongoing public purpose to justify continued possession by the State. They rely on a previous Kerala High Court decision (WPC 6348/2008) affirmed by a Division Bench in WA 2370/2008 and 2430/2008, arguing that upon refund of compensation together with interest, the State should restore the land to the original owners. The State, represented by the Department of Revenue, counters that land notified for public distribution to landless persons has been earmarked for that purpose; and that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, once vested in the Government, land may be used for any public purpose. The Government also points to decisions of the Supreme Court holding that there is no general right to return land acquired for public purposes, and cites Bhaskaran Pillai, Keeravani Ammal, and Leelawanti. The court notes the absence of a statutory provision for return of land under the repealed Act but states it will consider the matter in light of earlier judgments. It orders the Government to examine returning the land after hearing the petitioners and, if feasible, refund the full compensation with interest within three months.
Provisions of Law Cited
Land Acquisition Act, 1894Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Land acquired vests in the Government and can be used for public purposes (doctrine of vesting under LOA)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that abandonment of Mulavana project nullifies the ongoing public purpose for retaining the land; they urge recall of the acquisition and restoration of land upon refund of compensation with interest, citing earlier Kerala High Court judgments (e.g., WPC 6348/2008) and the principle that restoration is required when a project is abandoned. They invoke the 2013 Act’s restoration concepts and argue inequity in keeping land acquired for a project that never materialized.
Contentions of Respondents
The State argues that the lands were earmarked for distribution to landless people and that, once vested under the 1894 Act, land can be used for any public purpose; there is no statutory provision for returning land under the repealed Act. They rely on Supreme Court decisions in Bhaskaran Pillai, Keeravani Ammal, and Leelawanti to contend that land cannot be returned as a matter of right.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. | [(2015) 7 SCC 21] | Mentioned Only | Cited by petitioners to illustrate concerns about fraud in land distribution; not expressly adopted or overruled in this judgment. |
| State of Kerala and Others v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another | [1997(5) SCC 432] | Mentioned Only | Cited to support the proposition that once land is vested in the State it may not be returned under those authorities; not expressly overruled here. |
| T.N. Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal | [(2007) 9 SCC 255] | Mentioned Only | Cited as authority on public land and recall/remedy issues; no direct overruling. |
| Leelawanti v. State of Haryana | [(2012) 1 SCC 66] | Mentioned Only | Cited in the discussion of the contours of land recall/restoration; no explicit treatment in this judgment. |
| WPC 6348/2008 | - | Mentioned Only | Cited as related judgment/illustrative authority in the petitioners’ argument; not binding dicta in this decision. |
| WA Nos. 2370/2008 and 2430/2008 | - | Mentioned Only | Referenced in connection with the earlier common judgment; not treated as binding in this disposal. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Gevargheese Yohannan v. State of Kerala and The District Collector, Kollam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
# **MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015**
## **PETITIONER:**
**==> picture [98 x 117] intentionally omitted <==**
**GEVARGHESE YOHANNAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. LATE GEVARGHESE, PLAVILAPUTHAN VEETIL, NEAR SBT, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 501.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) SRI.P.BALAN (VYTTILA)**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||
|---|---|
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,**|
||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**|
|**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**|
||**KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 013.**|
||**BY ADV. SMT. AC VIDHYA GP**|
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).25801/2015, WP(C).30580/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-2-**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
**MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No. 25801 of 2015**
## **PETITIONER:**
**==> picture [95 x 93] intentionally omitted <==**
**ALIYAMMA THANKACHAN, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O. LATE THANKACHAN ALIAS THANKAPPAN, BINNY BHAVAN, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 501.**
**BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||
|---|---|
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**|
||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**|
|**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**|
||**KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.**|
||**BY ADV. SMT. AC VIDHYA GP**|
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).30580/2015, WP(C).22793/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-3-**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
**MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No. 30580 of 2015**
## **PETITIONER:**
**==> picture [95 x 93] intentionally omitted <==**
**K.O.MATHEW PANICKER, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE OOMMAN PANICKER, KALLARACKEL PUTHEN VEEDU (THADATHIVILA), KANJIRAKOTT MURI, KUNDARA, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.**
## **BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||
|---|---|
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**|
||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**|
|**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**|
||**KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.**|
||**BY ADV. SMT. AC VIDHYA GP**|
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).25801/2015, WP(C).22793/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-4-**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **[ WP(C)No.22793/2015, WP(C)No.25801/2015, WP(C)No.30580/2015 ]**
The petitioners in all these writ petitions mainly pray for return of their land acquired for the purpose of Mulavana Distributory. According to them, the very project of Mulavana Distributory having been abandoned, the land should be returned to them. The petitioners refer to the judgment of this Court in W.P.
(C)No.6348/2008, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2370/2008 and argued that on returning the compensation received along with the interest, the State may be directed to return the land to them.
2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that these lands now having been earmarked for distribution of landless people, the petitioners' request cannot be accepted.
3. The land belonging to petitioners were acquired in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the year 1994. Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, previous owner has a right for return of land under Section 101 of the Act. However, there is no corresponding provision in the repealed Act.
4. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 once the land is acquired that will be vested with the Government. The Government
## **WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-5-**
can decide using the land for any public purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., [(2015)**
**7 SCC 21]** argued that the present purpose of the Government is to distribute the land among landless people and it amounts to fraud.
5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in **State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another [1997(5)SCC 432], T.N. Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal [(2007) 9 SCC 255]** and **Leelawanti v. State of Haryana,**
**[(2012) 1 SCC 66]** argued that once the land is vested with the Government, it cannot be returned.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempt to
distinguish this case from all other cases on a premise that in this case, the project itself was abandoned and there was no purpose for acquiring the land and therefore, the Government has every power to recall the acquisition and to return the land to the original owners.
7. I have considered the rival contentions. I am of the
view that the Government shall address this issue, especially, in
the light of the judgment of this Court already rendered. The Government shall examine whether the land can be returned to the petitioners on refunding the entire compensation received along with the interest. In the absence of any statutory
## **WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-6-**
provisions for the return of the land, the Government can decide the issue. Therefore, writ petitions are disposed of directing the Government to consider the request of the petitioners for the return of the land within a period of three months after hearing the petitioners.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
**Sd/-**
**A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
akv
**JUDGE**
**WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-7-**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22793/2015**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 01.11.1997.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.**|
||**07.07.2015 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 14.7.2015**|
||**ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,**|
||**KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 29.10.2008**|
||**IN WPC NO. 6348/2008.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT.**|
||**02.3.2009 IN WA NOS. 2370/2008 AND**|
||**2430/2008.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17/2/2015 IN**|
||**SLP NOS. 33369-33370/2009.**|
|**RESPONDENT'S/S**|**EXHIBITS**<br>**:NIL.**|
||**//TRUE COPY//**|
||**CA TO JUDGE**|
**WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-8-**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25801/2015**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**A COPY OF THE SALE DEED 4689/67**|
||**DTD.19.9.1967.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**A COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.14.7.2015 ISSUED**|
||**BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KALLADA**|
||**IRRIGATION PROJECT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.29.10.2008 IN**|
||**WPC NO.6348/2008.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**A COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD.2.3.2009**|
||**IN WA NOS.2370/2008 AND 2430/2008.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**A COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.2.2015 IN SLP**|
||**NOS.33369-33370/2009.**|
|**RESPONDENT'S/S**|**EXHIBITS**<br>**:NIL.**|
||//TRUE COPY//|
||CA TO JUDGE|
**WP(C).No. 22793 of 2015 & Con. Cases**
**-9-**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30580/2015**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE DT.24-1-**|
|---|---|
||**1997.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.18-8-15**|
||**GIVEN TO SPECIAL TAHSILDAR UNDER RIGHT TO**|
||**INFORMATION.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.11-9-15 BY THE**|
||**OFFICE OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.7-7-15.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.14-7-15 ISSUED**|
||**FROM THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,**|
||**KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.29-10-08 IN**|
||**WPC 6348/08.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT.2-3-09**|
||**IN WPC 2370/08, 2430/08.**|
|**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-2-15 IN SLP**|
||**NOS.33369 AND 33370/09.**|
|**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.29-7-15**|
||**IN WPC 22793/15.**|
**RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL.**
//TRUE COPY// CA TO JUDGE