KANDIYIL PARANGOT KRISHNA KURUP Vs. TAHSILDAR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BADAGARA
LAWS(KER)-1967-12-23
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on December 02,1967

Kandiyil Parangot Krishna Kurup Appellant
VERSUS
Tahsildar And Land Acquisition Officer, Badagara Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is to quash certain Land acquisition proceedings in respect of an extent of about 7 cents of land of the petitioner.The petitioner has proceeded on the assumption that the notification under section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act alone had been issued,but the counter -affidavit has disclosed that the matter has passed beyond that stage,that the objection of the petitioner to the public purpose for the acquisition have been over -ruled and that the declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 27 -6 -1967.The publication of the section 6 declaration is subsequent to the filing of the writ petition,viz.30 th May 1967.
(2.) THAT land sought to be acquired is part of an extent of nearly 19 cents of land which was allotted to the petitioner in the final decree for partition of his family properties.In contained two buildings,one of which was occupied by the 3 rd respondent.To evict the 3 rd respondent,a rent control application was filed which ended in an exparte decree for eviction.The 3 rd respondent applied to set aside the exparte decree claiming ˜Kudikidappu ™right in respect of the building in question,and pursued the proceeding unsuccessfully in the appellate and in the revisional courts.At the end of it all,the 3 rd respondent was evicted from the property,and the petitioner obtained possession some time in October 1963.Thereafter,the petitioner has averred that the 3 rd respondent moved the director of Harijan Welfare for the acquisition of the land in question,the said allegation is not specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Board of Revenue.Indeed,paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit expressly admits that the purpose of the acquisition is for constructing a house for a poor harijan namely the 3 rd respondent.
(3.) THE petitioner's counsel assailed the acquisition on the ground that acquisition for the purpose of providing a house to a particular individual,be he even a poor harijan cannot amount to a public purpose.The authorities dealing with the question as to what is a public purpose underlying the acquisition have been exhaustively surveyed by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v R.S.Nanji(A.I.R.1956 S.C.294 ).It is unnecessary to state anything more than this,that the authorities are clear that a public purpose is something which vitally concerns the general interests of the community at large,as opposed to the particular interests of an individual concerned.Giving the matter out careful attention,we are unable to see how the purpose of the acquisition in the instant case can be said to be anything other than private and personal.Ex.P1 which is a copy of the section 3 notification expressly states the public purpose of the acquisition to be for the construction of a house for a poor harijan at Badafara ;.We are satisfied that this cannot be taken to amount to a public purpose,especially when there is no case at all that the acquisition was a part of a scheme for providing houses for poor harijans in the locality or area concerned. Our attention was called to the decision in Moosa v.State of Kerala.The decision of the learned single judge who heard the matter in the first instance,is reported in 1958 KLT 844,and that of the Division Bench which dealt with the matter in appeal,in 1960 KLT.630.The appellate judgment makes it clear beyond doubt that the acquisition there in question was as part of a scheme for the purpose of providing accommodation to poor Harijans and it is in the light of this circumstance alone that we can understand the decision of the learned single judge which was sustained on appeal.In the present case,as already noted there is no case for the state that the acquisition is as part of a scheme.On the face of it,the acquisition appears to be for a private purpose,and that impression is only confirmed by the background of the facts which we have set out,leading to the eviction of the 3 rd respondent from the property.;


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