S SISUPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2005-7-34
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 15,2005

S.SISUPALAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)PETITIONERS in both these cases challenge the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land for the purposes of conversion of Kollam-Punalur meter-gauge railway line as broad-gauge. Petitioners in both the cases concede that notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated as per Ext. P1. The Petitioners have now received notices under Section 9 (3) of the Act which are produced as Ext. P2 in these cases. The petitioners apprehend that in exercise of the emergency powers under Section 17 (4) of the Act, they are going to be dispossessed of their properties immediately. According to them, in theses cases, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been made and they are not liable to be dispossessed till such time as declaration under Section 6 is promulgated.
(2.)WHEN these Writ Petitions came up for admission, I granted stay of dispossession temporarily and directed the Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents as to whether declaration under Section 6 has been promulgated, On being informed that Section 6 declaration is yet to be promulgated, I have heard the submissions of Sri. M. S. Unnikrishnan representing M/s. Sukumaran and Usha on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. L. Aloysius Thomas, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent-state and the other two respondents. Arguments of the counsel were confined to the question as to whether in the absence of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land-owners are liable to be dispossessed in exercise of the powers under Section 17 (1) or Section 17 (2) of the Act.
(3.)ACCORDING to Mr. Unnikrishnan, the issue as to whether the land in question is needed for a public purpose will attain finality only when the declaration under Section 6 is promulgated and only such a declaration will be exclusive evidence regarding the public nature of the need. Inviting my attention to Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, Mr. Unnikrishnan submitted that even in cases where the emergency provisions under Section 17 are invoked, a declaration under Section 6 is obligatory. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. L. Jain v. DDA (2004)4 SCC 79) to support his arguments.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.