ABRAHAM MATHAI Vs. SUB COLLECTOR LAND ACQ OFFICER
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sub Collector Land Acq Officer
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The appellant who is owner of land comprised in R. S. Nos. 44/11 and 44/20 in village Thottapuzhasseri in Alleppey District, assailed the validity of the declaration made under S. 6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962 made by respondent 2, Board of Revenue, Kerala State on 25/09/1973 and published in Kerala Gazette dated 16/10/1973 staling that the landsdescribed therein are needed for a public purpose namely for a playground for M. M. A. High School and directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Changannur to order for acquisition of the same.
(2.)The grounds on which the challenge was made in the writ petition inter alia were that the property in question was mortgaged with the Maramon Marthomite Church, as the Church refused to return the property on accepting the money, the appellant filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage which was ultimately decreed and appellant got possession of the property on 8/10/1973. During the pendency of the suit the church authority moved the educational authorities as well as the Sub-Collector for acquisition of the property for the school in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioner-appellant. It has also been alleged that the purported proposal to acquire the said property was made fide. The land was situated about 3 furlongs away from the school and it was not convenient to be used as playground of the school, that there were more suitable land available for purpose of playground, that the land was required by the owner for purpose of constructing buildings for his sons. The appellant raised all those objections within the prescribed time on receiving notice under S. 5 of the said Act. No notice was issued to the Education Department as required under Rule 5 (b) and (c) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules and the objection made by the appellant was decided by the respondents without hearing the government department or its representative. As such the impugned declaration is illegal and bad and the proceeding for acquisition is also illegal and unwarranted. The writ petition being O. P. No. 3743 of 1973 was dismissed by the High court holding that there was no violation of the provisions of Rule 5 (b) and (c) of said Rules nor there was infringement of Rule 6.
(3.)The instant appeal is on a certificate granted by the High court under S. 133 (1 of the Constitution of India.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.