Maleril Poulose and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930** **WP(C).No. 8453 of 2008(F)** **---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **1. MALERIL POULOSE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 63 YEARS, MALERIL GALEELA HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O AMBALAMEDU - 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **2. DARLEY PAUL, W/O.MALERIL POULOSE, MALERIL GALEELA HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. AMBALAMEDU - 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **3. VARKEY YOHANNAN, S/O.VARKEY, MALERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. AMBALAMEDU - 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **4. ALEYAMMA, W/O.VARKEY YOHANNAN, MALERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. AMBALAMEDU 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **5. ADV.ALIAS M.M., S/O.MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, MALERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. AMBALAMEDU 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT MALERIL HOUSE, 37/473, TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHRA.** **6. ALEYAMMA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, AGED 79 YEARS, MALERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O AMBALAMEDU 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **7. MATHEW VARGHESE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 55 YEARS, MALERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O AMBALAMEDU - 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **8. M.M.POULOSE, S/O.MATHEW, MALERIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. AMBALAMEDU - 682 303, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8453/2008** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SEZ DIVISION, NEW DELHI.** **3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.** **5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA.) KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., TRIPUNITHURA.** **6. M/S.INFO PARK, PROJECT OFFICE SDF IT BUILDING AT INFO PARK, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.** ## *** R7 IS IMPLEADED.** **7. THE SECRETARY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 13.06.2008 IN IA. 7043/2008.** **ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, INFOPARKS FOR R.6 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R2 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.D.ANILKUMAR FOR R1, 3 TO 5 AND 7** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9735 OF 2008 WPC NO. 20819 OF 2008 WPC NO. 25104 OF 2008 WPC NO. 26555 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8453/2008** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 24.6.07 FOR AN EXTENT OF 6.6665 HECTARES.** **P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 24.8.07 FOR AN EXTENT OF 58.6795 HECTARES OF LAND.** **P3:- COPY OF THE SKETCH.** ## **P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR (C6)/10251 DT. 2.6.07.** **P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(6) 10251/07 DT. 7.7.07 ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.** **P6:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO IST PETITIONER.** **P6(a):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.** **P6(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER.** **P6(c):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER.** **P7:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 30.11.07 FILED BY IST PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO IST PETITIONER.** **P8(a):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS 7 & 8.** **P8(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS 1,3,4,7 AND 8.** **P9:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 27.2.08 FILED BY PETITIONERS.** **P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 6.9.06 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, KERALA.** **P11:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** **P11(a):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** **P11(b):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB. P11(c):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8453/2008** **P11(d):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** **P11(e):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** **P11(f):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** **P11(g):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY KARSHAKA FARM CLUB.** **P12:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 6.8.07 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.** **P12(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 25.6.07 SUBMITTED BY IST PETITIONER.** **P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.9.07 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.** **P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31.5.07 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** **P15:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19.7.07 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** **P16:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.2.08 ISSUED BY COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** **P17:- COPY OF THE MAP OF KINTRA FORCIBLY ACUIRED AND FILLED UP PADDY FIELD.** **P18:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 29.2.08 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.** **P19:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 3.3.2008 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.** **P20:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 4.5.07.** ## **P21:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 5.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.** **P22:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 16.5.07 FROM THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **P22(a):- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 25.5.07 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **P22(b):- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 15.5.07 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.** **P23:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25.6.07 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.** **P24:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 3.6.08 SUBMITTED BY THE SIT PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INFO PARK, KAKKANAD.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8453/2008** **P25:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12.3.08 ISSUED TO THE SIT PETITIONER FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **P26:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 2.4.08 ISSUED FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) TO THE IST PETITIONER.** ## **P27:- COPY OF THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY ON 23.5.08.** ## **P28:- COPY OF THE REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 24.5.08.** **P29:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KERALA GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND TEECOM INEVESTM,ENT FZ-LLC AND SMART CITY (KOCHY) INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED.** **P30:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 21.6.99 SUBMITTED BY THE SIT PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CROPS IN 1999.** **P31:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 21.6.99 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CROPS IN 1999.** **P31(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 21.6.99 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THE AGRICULTURAL CROPS IN 1999.** **P32:- COPY OF THE ORDER 29.4.99 OF THE SECRETARY, ADAUKODE -PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH ISSUED TO THE KINFRA.** **P33:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16.5.99 AT THE CAMP OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** **P34:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 1.8.03 ISUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **P35:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 5.11.04 SUBMITTED BY MR.M.P.ARGHESE, M.L.A. KUNNATHUNAD CONSTITUENCY TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.** **P36:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 5.11.04 SUBMITTED BY BLOCK PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT ADAUKODE BLOCK TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.** **P37:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 25.10.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPLE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** **P38:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.12.95 ISSUED FROM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM TO THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.** **P39:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.3.96 ISSUED FROM ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO M/S/ RDS PROJECT LIMITED.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.8453/2008** ## **P40:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 31.1.96 EXECUTED BY KINFRA.** ## **P41:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 2.4.08 FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER).** **P42:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 19.6.08 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **P43:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17.10.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.** ----------------------------------------------W.P.(C)Nos. 8453, 9735, 25104, 26555 & 20819 of 2008 -----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 ## **J U D G M E N T** All these writ petitions are filed challenging land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of expansion of Infopark. There are eight petitioners in WP(C). No. 8453 of 2008 whose lands are proposed to be acquired. The respondents in that writ petition are State of Kerala (R1), The Director, Ministry of Industries & Commerce, Government of India (R2), The Deputy Commissioner Land Revenue (R3), The District Collector (R4), The Special Tahsildar (L.A) R5, M/s. Infopark (R6) and I.T.Secretary (Addl. R7). The prayers in this writ petition are: - a) Declare that the action proposed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Exts.P1 and P2 notifications, P6, P6(a) to ©, P8, P8(a) & (b), P18 and P19 notices are invalid for the reason that there is no public purpose involved and also for the reason that provisions of Part VII of Land Acquisition Act have not been complied with. - b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari etc. quashing Exts.P1 and P2 notifications and P6(a) to (c) and P8(a) & (b) notices. - c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exts.P1 and P2 notifications, P6, P6(a) to (c) and P8, P8(a) & (b) notices in so far as it relates to the invocation of emergency clause under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and in so far as it dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in relation to lands proposed to be acquired. - d) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exts.P18 and P19 notices in so far as it relates to the invocation of WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -2- emergency clause under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as it dispenses with enquiry under section 5-A of the Act. - e) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct an enquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act or cause such an enquiry to be conducted by authorised official of the Government in relation to proposal for acquisition as contained in Exts.P1 and P2 notifications and P6, P6(a) to (c) and P8, P8(a) and (b) notices before proceeding with under the Land Acquisition Act in relation to lands belonging to petitioners. 2. There are altogether three petitioners in WP(C). No. 9735 of 2008 and the respondents in this writ petition are the State of Kerala (R1), The Land Revenue Commissioner (R2), The District Collector (R3), The Special Tahsildar (LA) (R4), I.T.Secretary (Addl.R5), M/s. Infopark (Addl. R6 and Sri.Maleril Poulose (Addl.R7). The prayers in this writ petition are: - a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1, P2, P7 series and P8 series to the extent of acquiring the land of the petitioners. - b) Issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notification. 3. In WP(C) No. 20819 of 2008 also there are three petitioners and the respondents therein are the State of Kerala (R1), the Director, Ministry of Industries and Commerce, Government of India (R2), the WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -3- Deputy Commissioner, Land Revenue (R3), the District Collector (R4), the Special Tahsildar (LA) (R5) and M/s. Infopark (R6). The prayers in the writ petition are: - a) A declaration that there is no public purpose involved in the acquisition and that the proceedings are bad for noncompliance with the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act. - b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1 and P2 notifications and P6 notice. - c) To quash the invocation of the emergency provisions and dispensation of the enquiry under section 5A. - d) To direct section 5A enquiry to hold and exempt the petitioners' property from acquisition. 4. In WP(C). No. 21504 of 2008 also there are three petitioners and the respondents therein are State of Kerala (R1), The Director, Ministry of Industries & Commerce, Government of India (R2), The Commissioner of Land Revenue (R3), The District Collector (R4), The Special Tahsildar (LA) (R5), M/s. Infopark (R6) and the Union of India (R7). The prayers in this writ petition are: - a) A declaration that sections 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 suffers from excessive delegation and is violative of Articles 14 and 245 of the Constitution of India and to strike them down as unconstitutional. - b) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notification and Exts.P2, P3, P5 and P6 notices issued by the 4[th] respondent as WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -4- the same is issued in ultravires to section 4(1) and Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act and also for the reason that they are issued as per the instruction and dictates of higher ups and not for the reason any public purpose. - c) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P8 and P9 orders issued by the 3[rd] respondent as the same is ultravires to section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. - d) Declare that the action proposed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Exts, P2, P3, P5 and P6 notices are invalid for the reason that there is no element of public purpose involved and that the notices suffer from vagueness and lack of clarity and also for the reason that the provisions of Part VII of the land Acquisition Act have not been complied with. - e) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing Ext.P1 order and all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order. - f) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents, their men and agents from acquiring the petitioners' property. 5. In WP(C) No. 26555 of 2008 there are two petitioners and the respondents therein are State of Kerala (R1), The Director, Ministry of Industries & Commerce, Government of India (R2), The Commissioner of Land Revenue (R3), The District Collector (R4), The Special Tahsildar (LA) (R5), M/s. Infopark (R6) and the Union of India (R7). The prayers therein are: - a) To quash Ext.P1 notification under section 4(1) as invalid and unauthorised. - b) To quash Ext.P5 order issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner as invalid and against the provisions of Land WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -5- Acquisition Act. - c) Declare that the whole proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act is a malafide exercise of the power by the Government of Kerala. 6. Counter affidavits were filed in WP(C). No. 8453 of 2008 by 6[th] respondent and the additional 7[th] respondent. The Government Pleader submitted adoption statement on behalf of the State and the other public officers who are respondents. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit. In WP(C) No. 9735 of 2008 counter affidavit was filed by R2, and additional respondents 5 and 6. 7. Sri.V.R.Venkitakrishnan, senior counsel addressed me extensively on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C). No. 9735 of 2008. The learned senior counsel referred to Section 17(4) and section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. He referred to Exts. P1, P2, P4, P5 and P10 in WP (C). No. 8453 of 2008, rule 6 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules and to sub-rule (3) of rule 6. The learned senior counsel referred to the pleadings in the various writ petitions. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004(3) KLT 462 (SC) and also on the judgment of this Court in Pankajakshy v. State of Kerala 1990(1) KLT 776. It was Advocate Sri.G.Krishnakumar who addressed me on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C). No. 25104 of 2008. WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -6- Mr. Krishnakumar also addressed me very strenuously and extensively. The learned counsel referred to Sections 4(1), 5A and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sheikhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave & Another, J.T. 2008(7) SC 120, a judgment which was cited by the senior Govt. Pleader Mr.Anilkumar and also to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Munshi Singh & Ors. v. UOI (1973) 2 SCC 337 and judgment of this Court in Samuel v. Secretary to Govt. 2002(2) KLT 339. Judgments of the Supreme Court in Hamdardh Dawakahana v. UOI, AIR 1960 SC 554, AIR India v. Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829, A.N. Parasuraman v. State of T.N., 1989 (4) SCC 683 and in State of Punjab v. Khan Chand, AIR 1974 SC 543 were a few of the decisions which were cited before me by Mr.Krishnakumar. Sri.Krishnakumar in his submissions referred also to Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, Lingappa Pochenna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra, (1985)1 SCC 480, Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. UOI, (1996) 10 SCC 104, Atamprakash v. State of Haryana, (1986) 2 SCC 249, S.Alwardas v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1995 A.P. 71 etc. 8. Sri.P.A.Ahammed, Standing Counsel for Infopark was able to meet the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners to a WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -7- considerable extent. He submitted that only a small percentage of the total number of land owners whose properties are being acquired for this purpose figure as petitioners before this court. DLPC rates have been accepted by most of the land owners. The District Collector is holding negotiations with the land owners and it is likely that a compromise will be arrived at, according to him. 9. Meeting the argument that the Land Acquisition Officer has not been duly authorised to initiate the acquisition proceedings in this case Mr.D.Anilkumar, learned senior Govt. Pleader placed before me a copy of SRO. No. 1743/89 dated 21-8-1989. He also placed before me a copy of the District Collector's letter. He referred to section 6(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151, M/s. Girias Investment (P) Ltd. & another v. State of Karnataka & others., J.T. 2008 (4) SC 242, Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy Distt. & others. J.T. 2008 (9) SCC 622 ( a decision which was relied on by Mr.P.A.Ahammed also), Sheikar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave v. State of U.P. J.T. 2008(7) SC 120 corresponding to 2008 (8) SCALE 322, Union of India v. Praveen Gupta, AIR 1997 SC 170, Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1996 SC 1051 etc. WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -8- 10. Sri.P.A.Ahammed placed before me a copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C). No. 3149 of 2006, whereby the Division Bench has held that acquisition for Infopark is for a public purpose. Mr.P.A.Ahammed towards the end of his submissions agreed that an enquiry under section 5A can be conducted in respect of the persons who figure as petitioners in these writ petitions provided a time frame of 30 days is set by this court for completing that enquiry. According to him, considering the strategic position which the city of Kochi occupies it is extremely urgent that Infopark is extended and more and more I.T. Companies come over to Kochi utilising the infrastructural facilities which will be offered by the expanded Infopark. Any delay in the matter may result in Kochi failing in the stiff competition the city is facing from other I.T. Cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune and Chennai. 11. The argument of Sri.V.R.Venkitakrishnan, learned senior counsel was that the acquisition is not for Infopark, but it is really intended for Smart City Infrastructure Private Limited which is a company registered under the Companies Act. According to him, it is a private company and therefore the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be invoked. His further argument was that in WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -9- acquisition for the purpose of a company, the procedure prescribed under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act will have to be followed and therefore the notifications issued under the general provisions of the L.A. Act will be bad in law. He argued that dispensation of enquiry under section 5A is not warranted in as much as there is no such urgency in this case which cannot brook delay of even 30 days. The contention of the learned senior Counsel Sri.K.P.Dandapany who appeared for the writ petitioners in WP(C). No. 8453 of 2008 were similar to those addressed by learned senior counsel Sri.V.R.Venkitakrishnan. One of the main contentions urged by Sri.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C). No. 25104 of 2008 was that the notification under section 4(1) itself is bad since the same is issued by the L.A. Officer and not by the Government. 12. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C). No.2655 of 2008 adopted the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners in other cases. He argued that the notification under section 4(1) issued by the L.A.Officer is bad since as much as the notification should have been issued by the Government. 13. I have considered the rival submissions of WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -10- Sri.V.R.Venkitakrishnan, learned senior counsel in support of his contention that the acquisition is for the purpose of Smart City and not for Infopark, referred to Ext.P10 agreement executed between the Government of Kerala, Infopark, Teacom and Smart City. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the I.T. Secretary at paragraph 16 that the present acquisition is for extension of Infopark Phase-II and only a strip of land is intended for providing a connective corridor to the Smart City Project area. It is stated that even this piece of land will be given only on lease to the Smart City and that Infopark will continue to be the owner of the property. The contention raised by the I.T. Secretary is acceptable. It follows that the contentions raised by the petitioners that the acquisition is for a company and that the emergency provisions cannot be attracted and that the procedure under Part VII should be followed, are unsustainable. Even if it is assumed that the acquisition is for the purpose of Smart City then also it cannot be said that the present proceedings are bad. This position has been explained by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Sooraram Pratap Reddy & others. v. District Collector Ranga Reddy Distt. & others, JT 2008 (9) SC 622. That was a case where acquisition was for a joint venture company between the State WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -11- of Andhra Pradesh and a foreign company. The equity participation by the State of Andhra Pradesh in that case in the joint venture company was only 26% while that of the foreign company was 74%. It was contended that the acquisition is for a company and therefore the procedure contemplated under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act are to be followed. The Supreme Court repelled this contention. In the case of Smart City also the equity participation of the Government of Kerala is 26% and that of the foreign company is 74%. The judgment of the Supreme Court applies to this case also and therefore the contention raised by the petitioners in this regard, at any rate, has to fail. 14. As regards the challenge against dispensation of enquiry under section 5A, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004 (3) KLT 462 SC. The Supreme Court distinguished the above decision in a later decision reported in Sheikhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave v. State of U.P. JT 2008 (7) SC 120. Even otherwise the position was always trite and there is no need for passing a reasoned order while dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under section 5A. What is necessary is that there must have been some materials on the WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -12- basis of which a subjective satisfaction could have been arrived at by he competent authority regarding the urgency of the need and that the competent authority (in this case, the Land Revenue Commissioner) applied his mind to the materials available before him and also to the question whether the need is so urgent that the enquiry under section 5A should be avoided. As directed by me the file maintained by the Land Revenue Commissioner was made available. The file disclosed that the Land Revenue Commissioner had materials before him on the basis of which he would have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that it is necessary to dispense with the enquiry under section 5A. 15. The argument of the learned senior Govt. Pleader that in this case declaration under section 6 has been issued and such declaration is to be taken as conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose is supported by judicial authorities. The expression “conclusive evidence” was considered by the Supreme Court in Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151 and it has been held that conclusive evidence means, conclusive proof. The above judgment is also an authority for the proposition that unless mala fides or colourable exercise of power is alleged and proved the court making judicial review is not entitled to go behind the declaration under section 6. In this case WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -13- I find there is only a faint allegation of mala fides. Those allegations do not merit consideration since I find that the persons to whom mala fides are attributed are not impleaded in their personal capacity or are given an opportunity to meet the allegations (see the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Girias Investment (P) Ltd. & another. v. State of Karnataka & others., JT 2008 (4) SC 242). 16. I am not impressed by the argument advanced by Mr.Krishnakumar and by Mr.Sohan that the notification under section 4 (1) is bad since the same is not issued by the Government In SRO. No. 7143/89, copy of which was made available to this court, it is stated that the Government of Kerala has appointed Special Tahsildar, Cochin Refineries to perform the function of collectors under the Land Acquisition Act within the area of Ernakulam Revenue District. The submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that similar notifications are issued by the Government appointing various Special Tahsildars as Collectors under the Land Acquisition Act was not disputed. I do not find any reason to reject the argument that when the Government appoints several Collectors under the L.A. Act in a Revenue District it is the District Collector as the head of the district administration who allots work to various collectors appointed by the Government. The learned WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -14- Government Pleader would explain that the use of the word “appointed” by the District Collector in his letter dated 15-12-2005 bearing number C-10-20291/05 is a misnomer. The above explanation according to me is convincing. As per section 4(1) of the Act the persons appointed as collector are also entitled to issue notifications under section 4(1). The word “collector” is defined under section 3 (c) in the following terms: “The expression “Collector” means the Collector of district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act.” When the Government have properly appointed Tahsildars as Collectors under the Land Acquisition Act, District Collector's letter dated 15-1205 using the word “appointed” cannot be a consequence. 17. Sri.G.Krishnakumar made very enthusiastic submissions on the basis of the grounds raised in his writ petition challenging the validity of various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel however, fairly conceded towards the end of his submissions that in case this court becomes inclined to grant relief to the petitioner on the other grounds it is not necessary that this court decides the grounds of challenge against the provisions of the statute. 18. The above discussions should have resulted in the dismissal WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -15- of all these writ petitions. However, taking into account the submission Mr. P.A.Ahammed, standing counsel for the requisitioning authority Infopark that Infopark does not have any serious objection to enquiry under section 5A being conducted as regards the properties of the petitioners in these writ petitions I am inclined to dispose of these writ petitions issuing directions in that regard. The result of the writ petition therefore will be as follows: The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to conduct enquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioners in these writ petitions only, provided objections have been submitted by them already to the notification under section 4(1). The enquiry to be conducted shall be completed within one month of receiving copy of this judgment since the objecting petitioners will have afforded a hearing opportunity. Once enquiry is completed, L.A. Officer will forward his report containing recommendations regarding the objections of the petitioners to the Land Revenue Commissioner. Land Revenue Commissioner will take fresh decision and issue declaration under section 6, on the basis of such recommendations, within two weeks of receiving the report from the Land Acquisition Officer. Considering the above directions the WP(C)N0.8453/08 etc. -16- declaration under section 6 which is now issued will be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today to the extent the same pertains to properties belonging to the petitioners in these cases. **(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)** ksv/-