SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakker, JJ.

Civil Appeals No. 2833 of 2005, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22019 of 2003, with No. 2834 of 2005, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23252 of 2003. D/d. 21.4.2005.

State of Kerala and others - Appellants

Versus

V.P. Kurien and others - Respondents

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 48, 4 and 6 - Permission to withdraw from acquisition - State Govt. seeking to withdraw from acquisition of land in town A in order to acquire land at P - Notification issued by State Govt. as a delegatee of the Central Government - Some of the landowners already paid compensation - Writ petitions earlier filed to avoid the said acquisition and to shift the terminal from A to P, dismissed - Having regard to the facts of the case we are of the view that the High Court correctly rejected the plea for shifting the proposed terminal and allowed the writ petition of the landlords who had sought for payment of the compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the notifications, after passing of an award for payment of compensation.

[Para 5]

ORDER

Ruma Pal, J. - Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the State Government of Kerala seeks to withdraw from acquisition of land at Mullackal in Alappuzha town in order to acquire land at Pallathuruthy. The question is, can it do so?

3. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has drawn our attention to the fact that the State Government had issued the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Article 258 of the Constitution, dated 16-12-1997 and 16-12-1998 respectively, as a delegatee of the Central Government. The order of delegation was passed on 19-1-1985. The land which was subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at Mullackal area in Alappuzha town had been notified for the purposes of a terminal for the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI). The proceedings were initiated after the matter had been considered at great length. The land in question was only part of the entire project for which the Central Government had already released Rs. 975.27 lakhs to the State Government of which Rs. 268.97 lakhs was for Alappuzha district alone. Out of this amount, the State Government had already paid compensation to some of the landowners. It is submitted that there was no question of any other land apart from the notified land being considered for acquisition at this stage.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the landowners who had asked for passing of an award and payment of compensation also submitted that the special leave petitions of the State Government as well as some landholders who had filed writ petitions before the High Court asking for shifting the acquisition from Mullackal to Pallathuruthy should not be entertained. It is stated that all the grievances raised by those writ petitioners as well as the State Government had been considered in an earlier round of litigation in respect of the very same acquisition and after extensive consideration of the grounds upon which the acquisition was sought to be avoided and the terminal sought to be shifted from Mullackal area to Pallathuruthy was rejected and the writ petitions had been dismissed. It is also pointed out that possession had been taken of all the land in respect of the project over a period of time commencing from 1999. The lands at Alappuzha district covering an area of 2.2277 hectares was the only strip of land in respect of which possession could not be taken by reason of the repeated orders of stay passed by the High Court.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case we are of the view that the High Court correctly rejected the plea for shifting the proposed terminal and allowed the writ petition of the landlords who had sought for payment of the compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the notifications, after passing of an award for payment of compensation. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

6. The High Court had directed that the award should be passed within a period of 3 months. By virtue of an order of stay obtained from this Court, the award has not yet been passed. We, accordingly extend the time for passing the award by another period of 3 months from today. If any amount has already been deposited by the State Government pursuant to the order of this Court, the same together with any accumulated interest thereon is permitted to be withdrawn by the State Government for the purpose of re-depositing the same on account of the compensation to be paid to the landowners of the affected areas in Mullackal.

Appeals dismissed.