High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-03-28Writ petitions disposed of with directions: eme...

Vaniyam Valappil Kunhiraman v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.21351/2007(P)

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Padmanabhan Nair
Judgment Date: 2008-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: The emergency clause invoked in respect of the petitioners is quashed; 5A inquiry will be confined to the petitioners in these petitions alone. Petitioners are given two weeks to file objections with the Land Acquisition Officer, who shall consider and decide within one month from filing, with due notice to the Municipality and petitioners. Land acquisition proceedings will stand stayed until objections are heard and disposed.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions: emergency clause quashed for petitioners, 5A enquiry confined to petitioners, objections to be filed within two weeks, LO to decide within one month, and land acquisition stay until objections are disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vaniyam Valappil Kunhiraman

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Local Administration (D) Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum
The Special Tahsildar (LA), Thalassery
District Collector, Kannur
Talipparamba Municipality, represented by Secretary, Talipparamba Municipality, Talipparamba P.O.
Vadi Ravi, Chairman, Talipparamba Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. V. Mohanan
• B. Rashmi

Counsels for Respondents

• Basant Balaji (Sr. Govt. Pleader)
• P. V. Surendranath

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition challenges a Land Acquisition notification dated 13-04-2007 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land to construct a new bus stand and related facilities at Taliparamba. The Taliparamba Municipality had adopted resolutions (Ext.P7 on 22-02-2003 and Ext.P8 on 29-07-2005) to acquire land for the bus stand project and sought administrative sanction under Section 17(4). The petition asserts mala fides and contends that Taliparamba already has three bus stands and that the project would cause undue hardship to petitioners and others; it argues that the 75 cents added land and the exclusion of some plots were not properly justified. The respondents deny mala fides, stating urban growth necessitates improved parking and facilities, and emphasize the need for redevelopment; they maintain urgent action was warranted due to traffic and space constraints. The court notes the matter has lingered since 2003, and after citing Union of India v Mukesh Hans, holds that mere urgency is not sufficient to bypass proper process. It quashes the emergency clause for the petitioners, confines 5A enquiry to the petitioners, directs objections within two weeks, and stays land acquisition until objections are heard and decided within a month, with due notice to the Municipality and petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition ActSection 5A of the Land Acquisition Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Urgency alone is not sufficient to sustain a land acquisition without proper justification; need for reasoned enquiry and due process (Union of India v. Mukesh Hans)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that the 13-04-2007 notification under Section 4(1) read with 17(4) lacks bona fides, is unnecessary given existing bus stands, and would deprive the petitioner of land without adequate justification. It emphasizes that the municipality could utilize adjacent spaces or re-align infrastructure (e.g., Kakkathodu bus stand) rather than resort to compulsory acquisition, and challenges the exclusion/addition of certain plots in Ext.P8. The petition seeks cancellation of the urgency clause for petitioners and a limited 5A enquiry to them, arguing that a prior delay from 2003 onwards requires due process before any acquisition. It also requests staying the land acquisition proceedings pending objections.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue the area’s congestion and developmental needs justify the acquisition for a new bus/taxi stand; they deny mala fides, point to population growth and space demand, and submit that the urgency clause was invoked under statutory provisions given the town’s growth. They deny merit-based objections at this stage and contend that the 5A inquiry should not unnecessarily stall infrastructure development.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India and others v. Mukesh Hans	2004(8) SCC 4	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that mere existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency is not in itself sufficient; the court must adhere to due process and consider objections.
O.P. 23240/2002	OP 23240/2002	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited as Ext.R4(B) but not discussed in detail herein.
W.P.(C). 34053/2003	W.P.(C).34053/2003	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited as Ext.R4(C); not elaborated upon in the judgment text.
W.P.(C). No. 26402/2005	W.P.(C).NO.26402/2005	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited as Ext.R4:D; no discussion of its ruling in the text.
W.P.(C). NO. 15591/2005	W.P.(C).NO.15591/2005	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited as Ext.R4:E; no discussion of its ruling in the text.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Vaniyam Valappil Kunhiraman v. State of Kerala & Others 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 K.PADMANABHAN NAIR** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930** **WP(C).No. 21351 of 2007(P)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **VANIYAM VALAPPIL KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 84, S/O.KANNAN, LEELA NIVAS, THRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA, PIN - 670 141.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN, ADV. SMT.B.RASHMI.** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY.** **3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.** **4. THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THALIPARAMBA MUNCIPALITY, TALIPARAMBA.P.O.** **5. VADI RAVI, CHAIRMAN, THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, THALIPARAMBA.** **R1 TO 3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS.24063/2007, 24423/2007 34133/2007 & 26409/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C). NO.21351/2007-P:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LAY OUT PLAN OF SURVEY NO. RS NO.52/4,52/6,52/7 AND 52/8.** **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BA 261/2000-2000 DTD. 20/10/2000.** **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BA 321/94-95 DTD. 22/12/1994.** **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BA 12/05-06 DTD. 12/05/2005.** **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. B.5018/04 DTD. 21/04/07.** **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DTD. 26/05/2007.** **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE AGENDA OF MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL MEETING DTD. 18/02/2003.** **EXT.P.8(1-4): COPY OF THE AGENDA OF MUNICIPALITY SHOWING APPROVAL OF NEW ALIGNMENT DTD. 29/07/2005.** **EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 460/06 LSGD DTD. 17/02/2006.** **EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE AGENDA DTD. 07/03/2006.** **EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 06/06/2007.** **EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY FROM TAHSILDAR DTD. 20/06/2007.** **EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER FORM 4 (B) DTD. 31/05/2007.** **EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE KEY PLAN SHOWING EXISTING BUS STAND.** **EXT.P.15: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 30/07/2005.** **EXT.P.16: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 30/07/2005.** **EXT.P.17: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 30/07/2005.** **EXT.P.18: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 27/11/2006. EXT.P.19: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 04/01/2007. EXT.P.20: TRUE PRESS REPORTS OF 09/02/2007.** ## **W.P.(C). NO.21351/2007-P:** **EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE REPREENTATIONS/COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY TALIPARAMBA MERCHANT ASSOCIATION DTD. 29/06/2003.** **EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 23240/2002 DTD. 14/08/2002. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). 34053/2003 DTD. 24/03/2004. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 26402/2005 DTD. 06/09/2005. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 15591/2005 DTD. 22/09/2005.** **//TRUE COPY//** **prv.** ## **K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J. ================================ W.P.(C)Nos. 21351, 24423, 24063, 34133 and 26409 OF 2007** **================================= Dated this the 28th day of March 2008** ## **JUDGMENT** The challenge in all these writ petitions are directed against the notification issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.4.2007 which is marked as Ext.P5 in Writ Petition No.21351/2007. The same notification is produced in other writ petitions also. The facts will be referred to as stated in Writ Petition No.21351/2007. 2. The 4th respondent Taliparamba Municipality passed Ext.P7 resolution as early as on 22.2.2003 to request the government to acquire land for the purpose of construction of a new bus stand, taxi stand etc. Subsequently the Municipality passed Ext.P8 resolution on 29.7.2005 to acquire 75 cents more for the purpose of construction of the bus stand etc. Government accorded administrative sanction under Section 17(4). Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer issued the notification under Section 4(1) invoking Section 17(4) of the Act also. The W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 2 petitioners are challenging the notification under Section 4(1) read with 17(4) of the Act. It was contended that at present at Taliparamba Municipality, there are three bus stands. There is allegation of mala fides also. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Municipality had filed detailed counter affidavits denying all the allegations levelled against them. It is contended that Taliparamba Municipality has fast development but lacks infrastructure for its development. It is contended that as per 2001 census more than 450 buses are conducting service through the town. 100 taxis, 500 auto rickshaws, 150 lorries, mini lorries, tempos etc. were also to be parked. It is also contended that the existing bus stand is not sufficient to accommodate all buses. The mala fides alleged are also denied. It was contended that various persons and organizations have filed writ petitions before this Court to compel the Municipality to establish sufficient parking space and also bus stands. That is the reason why the Municipality was compelled to make a requisition to the government to invoke urgent clauses. The 4th respondent has produced Exts.R4(b) to W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 3 R4(e) judgments before this court in various writ petitions. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits reiterating the averments in the writ petition. It is contended that the bus stand at Kakkathodu can be eazily utilized for parking autorickshaws, jeeps and other vehicles. It is also contended that Kakkathodu bus stand and newly constructed bus stand is linked with road and well connected and if at all the Municipality needs more space, it can very well extend the road by connecting Kakkathodu and newly constructed bus stand. It is also contended that if the Municipality proceeded with acquisition, it will have to spend huge amounts. For the acquisition of the land alone, the Municipality will have to spent more than 7 crore rupees for the construction of a new bus stand and it may have to borrow huge amounts. The first resolution was passed on 22.2.2003. Subsequently on 29.7.2005, the properties owned by 11 persons which is having an area of 159.25 cents was excluded. In the year 2000, 75 cents was added to the said property. According to the counsel for the Municipality, there were valid reasons for exclusion of those lands because the plots exempted were having W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 4 residential buildings and it was not absolutely essential. It is also submitted that unless the 75 cents subsequently added is also acquired, the purpose will not be served. I do not think it is necessary to consider the matter on its merits at this stage. I am of the view that since the matter is pending from 2003 onwards, it is only just and proper to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A in respect of the petitioners in this writ petition alone. **Union of India and others v Mukesh Hans** (2004(8) SCC 4), the apex court held that the mere existence of an urgency or unforeseen emergency not by itself is sufficient. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the view that invocation of the urgency clause in respect of the petitioners are to be quashed and they are to be permitted to file their objections to 4(1) notification within a time frame. The Land Acquisition officer shall consider the same and take a decision, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of filing of the objections with due notice to the petitioners. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. W.P.(C)21351/2007 & conn.cases 5 The emergency clause invoked in respect of the petitioners in these writ petitions alone is quashed. I make it clear that I am not quashing the same in respect of the other persons and 5A enquiry will be confined to the petitioners in these petitions alone. Petitioners are given two weeks time from the date of receipt of the judgments to raise all their objections before the Land Acquisition officer, who shall consider the same and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of filing of the objection with due notice to the Municipality as well as the petitioners. Land acquisition proceedings will stand stayed until the land acquisition officer hears and dispose of the objections. ## **K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **css/**