Kerala High Court
K.J.James vs The State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:47316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2025/9TH ASHADHA, 1947
W.A.NO.227 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.01.2025 IN W.P(C).NO.18680 OF 2021
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 K.J.JAMES,
AGED 64 YEARS
KANDARAPALLIL HOUSE, MANJOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686603
2 ALEX THAYYIL,
THAYYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686603
BY ADV.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
BY ADV.SMT.ANJALI MENON
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
ADDL.R4 MANJOOR VIKASANA SAMITHY, KURUPPUMTHARA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.JOHN PAUL,
RESIDING AT THENGUMPALLY, KURUPPUMTHARA,
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:47316
MANJOOR P.O., IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20-10-2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021, PIN - 686603
ADDL. R5 ROADS AND BRIDGES CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,
KOCHI - 682 024 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
02-11-2021 IN I.A.NO.2/2021,PIN - 682024
ADDL.R6 MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY (ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
14.07.2022 IN I.A.NO.4/2022), PIN - 686603
BY SMT.VINITHA B., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SMT.RESHMITA R. CHANDRAN, GOVERNMEN PLEADER
BY SRI.S.BIJU, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
BY ADV.SRI.BINU MATHEW
BY ADV.SRI.JUSTINE JACOB
BY ADV.SMT.SHEEJA SOMAN P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.06.2025, THE COURT ON 30.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:47316
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioners in W.P(C).No.18680 of 2021 are the appellants
before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2025 of a learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The brief facts necessary for
a disposal of this writ appeal are as follows;
The appellants herein had approached the writ court aggrieved
by the land acquisition proceedings that had been initiated under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as
'the 2013 Act'] by which lands belonging to them stood compulsorily
acquired by the State for the purposes of constructing a Railway
Overbridge and its approach roads at Kuruppanthara in Kottayam
District. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings were premised
primarily on the contention that the procedural safeguards that were
put in place in the 2013 Act were honoured more in breach by the
authorities who were entrusted to discharge their statutory functions
with due diligence. In particular it was pointed out that while under
Section 8 of the 2013 Act, the appropriate Government [in this case 'the
District Collector'] had to take a decision as to whether there was a
legitimate and bona fide public purpose for which the acquisition was
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:47316
proposed, and the decision had to be taken after looking into the report
of the expert group constituted under Section 7 of the 2013 Act, no
such decision was taken by the District Collector. It was contended
therefore that the notification issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act
had to be seen as invalid. It was the further case of the appellants that
the authorities under Sections 4 and 7 of the 2013 Act had not
addressed the question as to whether any public purpose was served
through the proposed acquisition more so when there was an existing
railway overbridge that was constructed in the year 2017 within a
distance of 250 metres of the proposed site, and yet another newly
constructed Railway Overbridge within one kilometre from the
proposed site.
2. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, referred
to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents to find that
there had been sufficient compliance with the substantive and
procedural provisions of the 2013 Act and hence there was no necessity
to interfere with the acquisition proceedings that were now in an
advanced stage where awards had been passed determining the
compensation payable to the affected persons. The learned Judge also
took note of the fact that while there were many persons who were
affected by the acquisition proceedings, only two persons had chosen to
challenge the same, and therefore the overriding public interest lay in
allowing the acquisition proceedings to go ahead.
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:47316
3. Before us, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel
Sri. Suresh Kumar P.K., assisted by Adv.Sri.K.P.Sudheer that the learned
Single Judge failed to take note of the importance of the particular
procedural provisions under the 2013 Act, that were not there under
the earlier enactment, and were inserted therein to ensure a first-level
protection to citizens against an arbitrary deprivation of their property
rights. In particular, he points to the fact that there was no decision
taken by the District Collector in terms of Section 8 of the 2013 Act, as
indeed he could not have, since the material he was to rely upon for
taking an informed decision was the report of the expert group under
Section 7 which itself had not considered relevant facts while
submitting its report. He refers to the report of the expert group to
show that there was no consideration of the issue of whether or not
there was a legitimate and bona fide need for another Railway
Overbridge in the area when there were two other such overbridges in
the vicinity.
4. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Senior
Government Pleader Smt.Vineetha, as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the other respondents, that the acquisition
proceedings having progressed to a stage where awards had been
passed in favour of many of the affected persons, and the objection to
the acquisition was raised only by the two appellants herein, there was
no necessity to stall a project conceived in public interest. It is their
contention that the private interests of the two appellants have to yield
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:47316
to the overriding public interest that was in favour of the acquisition
proceedings for a much-awaited overbridge in the area.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
pleadings and precedents cited before us. Before we embark upon an
analysis of the legal submissions, we deem it apposite to refer to a few
salient features of the 2013 Act, in the backdrop of the emerging trend
in property rights jurisprudence in our country.
6. The preamble to the 2013 Act indicates that it was enacted to
replace the earlier expropriatory legislation by providing for a humane,
participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition.
The intentions are to acquire land with least disturbance to the owners
and other affected families, provide just and fair compensation to the
affected persons, make adequate provisions for their rehabilitation and
resettlement, and ensure that the cumulative outcome of the
compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become
partners in development leading to an improvement in their post-
acquisition social and economic status. It is therefore that detailed
provisions were made in the 2013 Act to ensure the participation of the
affected persons in all the stages of the acquisition. The Act also
introduced for the first time, provisions for social impact analysis and a
mode of acquisition requiring consent of the displaced. The social
impact analysis is intended to ensure that there is a clear perception,
through a careful quantification of the costs and benefits that will
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:47316
accrue to society at large, of the desirability and justifiability of each
project. Towards this end, the adverse impact on affected families -
economic, environmental, social and cultural - has to be assessed in a
participatory and transparent manner. In recognition of the importance
of the right being taken away from the affected persons - one that is
traceable to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India - Section 7 of the
2013 Act requires the appropriate Government to ensure that the social
impact assessment report is evaluated by an independent
multi-disciplinary expert group and still thereafter, in terms of Section 8
of the 2013 Act, to further apply its mind to the report of the expert
group and ensure that there is a legitimate and bona fide public
purpose for the proposed acquisition, which necessitates the acquisition
of the lands identified. Thus, a three-tier mechanism was put in place
solely for the purpose of ensuring that the acquisition proceedings are
indeed for a legitimate and bona fide public purpose. The procedural
provisions contained in Sections 7 and 8 of the 2013 Act are therefore
intended to be strictly and scrupulously adhered to with a view to
safeguard the constitutional guarantee against an arbitrary deprivation
of the property rights of a citizen.
7. Highlighting the importance of procedure in matters relating
to the compulsory acquisition of property, the Supreme Court in Urban
Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass (D) through Lrs. &
Ors. - [MANU/SC/1175/2023], observed as follows:
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:47316
"89. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment had the occasion to look at
the process of compulsory land acquisiton where the landowners had
practically no means to oppose the proposed acquisition. A two judge
bench in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P14 speaking through Indu Malhotra J.
made the following significant observation:
"12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the
Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued
to be a human right (Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corpn. [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corpn., (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491]) in a
welfare State and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of
his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a
citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure
estbalished by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not
expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article [K.T.
Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] ].
12.3. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without
following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as
also the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
9 0. The significance of complying with procedural requirements cannot,
therefore, be overstated.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
9 4. It logically follows from above that dispossession without following
prescribed statutory process such as giving proper notice, is not only
highly prejudicial but it is also a violation of constitutional rights and
would thereby vitiate the entire process of land acquisition. Law is well-
settled that strict adherence to the mandatory procedural requirements
outlined in the legislation is sine-qua-non for the compulsory acquisition
of land. Legally conducted acquisition procedures minimize the potential
for arbitrary action by the concerned Authority. The findings to this effect
by the Appellate Court and the High Court would therefore merit our
approval. In other words, land acquisition proceedings for the entire 3
bighas of land is held to be void-ab-initio."
8. More recently, in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr v.
Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors - [(2024) 10 SCC 533], the court while
rejecting the contention of the Corporation that it had effectively
acquired the property of a citizen, drew a distinction between a
statutory provision that confers a power of acquisition to the
Corporation and other provisions that dealt with the procedure to be
followed in the exercise of that power. The court found that Article 300-
A of the Constitution, that prohibited the deprivation of property of a
citizen save as authorized by law, conferred on a citizen seven sub-
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:47316
rights viz. (i) the right to a notice of the proposed acquisition, (ii) the
right to be heard on the objections if any to such proposal (iii) the right
to a reasoned decision thereon (iv) the right to insist that the
acquisition could only be for a public purpose (v) the right to restitution
or fair compensation (vi) the right to an efficient and expeditious
process and (vii) the right to a conclusion of the proceedings. In
essence, the court saw the concepts of substantive and procedural due
process as integral aspects of the phrase 'authority of law' in Article
300-A of the Constitution.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala & Ors. v.
Abdul Manaf P.M & Ors. - judgment dated 14.02.2024 in
W.A.No.195 of 2024, considered the legality of a report submitted by
an expert group that was not constituted in accordance with the
mandate of Section 7 of the 2013 Act. While setting aside the
acquisition proceedings in that case, this Court found as follows at para
8 of its judgment:
"8. Section 7 (2b) of the Act makes it mandatory that the Expert
Group constituted under Sub Section (1) of Section 7 shall include two
representatives of Grama Panchayat, Grama Sabha, Municipality or
Municipal Corporation, as the case may be. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that when land within a Panchayat is sought to be
acquired there shall be two representatives from that Panchayat.
Similarly, in the case of Municipality or Municipal Corporation, two
representatives from the local body concerned shall be included in the
Expert Group. It cannot be said that, in the case of a joint acquisition, in
which land from the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation
area is being acquired, two representatives of any of the local body is
sufficient. In that case, two representatives each from the Panchayat,
Municipality or Municipal Corporation are required to be included in
the Expert Group. This requirement cannot be met by the
representatives of the Panchayat being heard at the stage of
preparation of social impact assessment report. It is settled law that
when the statute mandates something to be done in a particular
manner, it shall be done in that manner alone. In the present case, it is
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:47316
clear that no members from any of the Panchayats were included in the
Expert Group constituted under sub Section (1) of Section 7. Therefore,
subsequent consideration and approval of the the recommendation
made by the Expert Group, would not also suffice. For the purpose of
acquisition proceedings, when an Expert Group is constituted for
evaluating the report, two representatives of the local bodies affected
by the acquisition proceedings shall be included in the Expert Group. In
the present case, members of the Chirakkal and Valappattanam
Panchayats which are also affected, are not included in the Expert
Group. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, after considering the
relevant provisions of law, has committed no error in allowing the
petition. The decision relied on by the learned Government Pleader
deals with the situation where principles of natural justice are violated,
whereas, in the instant case, the violation is of a statutory mandate.
Being so, the question whether the petitioners are prejudiced by the
violation has no relevance."
The law as it stands today, therefore, frowns upon procedural lapses
occasioned by authorities under the 2013 Act who are entrusted with
the task of safeguarding the constitutional protections offered to our
citizens. It is against the backdrop of that understanding that we must
consider the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.
10. On going through the files relating to the acquisition
proceedings that were made available for our perusal, we find that the
office notes do not indicate whether or not the District Collector, who
was the appropriate government for the purposes of the present
acquisition, actually applied his mind to the report of the expert group.
While there is no endorsement in the digital office notes, the District
Collector appears to have put his signature on the notes/reports placed
before him by his subordinate authorities. When the above aspects were
pointed out to the learned Government Pleader, an additional affidavit
was filed on behalf of the District Collector wherein the explanation
given reads as follows:
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:47316
"10. On 09.04.2025, this Hon'ble Court opined that there appear
to be merits in the petitioners' claims of non-application of mind on the
part of the Appropriate Government (District Collector). It may kindly
be noted that the Appropriate Government (District Collector) who
issued Exhibit R2(i) has since retired, complicating efforts to obtain an
affidavit attesting to the thoroughness of his review process as contested
by the petitioners. The undersigned respondent is now officiating in the
same post and similar capacity. I affirm from an administrative
perspective that all relevant documentation was meticulously examined
and validated before the issuance of the order.
11. The legal presumption is that individuals in positions such as
District Collector are fully aware of their responsibilities and the powers
granted to them by the Government. When they sign documents, these
officials demonstrate their commitment and careful use of their
cognitive abilities.
12. The operations of the collectorate and various government
offices are governed by procedures established by the Government over
time. As outlined in the Manual of Office Procedures, documentation
aspects such as file notices, enclosures, drafts, the use of current files,
and communication methods are detailed. Specifically, Chapter 6 of this
manual addresses the noting process. It is mandated that the notes are
brief and precise, intended solely for the smooth functioning of the
office.
13. In this case, the subordinate officers responsible for
preparing and submitting notes for the District Collector's endorsement
prepared the notes and submitted the file for the Collector's signature
after verification. The Collector has the authority to require the
rewriting or resubmission of notes to correct any deficiencies in the
drafts if deemed necessary. The purpose of maintaining note files is
strictly for these processes. A District Collector is expected to sign
documents only after thoroughly examining the file. Given that this is
the established practice, there should be no doubt regarding the conduct
of the District Collector. It is expected that the Collector performs his
duties diligently, and have been able to do so in every aspect.
14. In the Collectorate, the clerk first receives the
correspondence and subsequently organises the file along with relevant
notes. Next, the Junior Superintendent review the materials and adds
his observations. Following this, the Deputy Collector examines the file
and submits it to the appropriate authority for further action. Hence the
entire process undergoes strict scrutiny in the Collectorate.
15. It is also significant to note that the file was under the
District Collector's custody from January 13 to January 16, 2020, for an
in-depth study of the matter before issuing Exhibit R2(i). Note file
system ensured formal compliance with the office procedures. The
nuances of noting within the file, or its absence, should not be
interpreted as a lack of analytical engagement. Attempts by the
National Informatics Centre (NIC) and Kerala State IT Mission to
retrieve relevant data were unsuccessful. As a result, identifying the
activity log has become infeasible. The principle of "lex non cogit ad
impossibilia" emphasizes that the law does not require the performance
of impossible tasks. This respondent asserts that we are obligated to
fulfil our responsibilities diligently, and my predecessor did engage in
thorough consideration of the mandates of S.8(1) of the Act when issuing
Exhibit R2(i)."
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 12 ::
2025:KER:47316
11. We do not think the afore-extracted averments from the
affidavit filed on behalf of the District Collector indicate that the
statutorily required obligations of the appropriate Government were
satisfactorily discharged in the instant case. That apart, we do not find
any discussion in the social impact assessment report, or in the report
of the expert group that was forwarded to the District Collector, that
addresses the concerns raised by the appellants herein as regards the
need for another Railway Overbridge in the locality when there was
another one in the near vicinity. While it may be a fact that the
proposed overbridge was in fact a felt necessity of a majority of people
in the locality, and by that yardstick, a legitimate and bona fide public
purpose justifying the acquisition proceedings, we are of the view that
those considerations cannot outweigh the public interest sought to be
served by requiring the statutory authorities to scrupulously and
meticulously adhere to the procedural requirements of the 2013 Act.
The lackadaisical approach of the statutory authorities in the instant
case has necessarily to be deprecated, and we do so.
12. While our findings above would have sufficed to set aside the
acquisition proceedings, there are a couple of factors that yet dissuade
us from doing so. Firstly, there is evidence on record that clearly points
to the proposed railway overbridge offering a solution to the traffic
problems that afflict the locality. The proposal also appears to be
supported by most of the affected persons, as well as the people's
representatives in the locality. We are also told that the acquisition
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 13 ::
2025:KER:47316
proceedings have progressed to a stage where awards have been
passed, and compensation disbursed, to most of the affected
landowners. Halting the acquisition proceedings now would not be in
the socio-economic interests of the general public. We therefore feel
that it would not be in the interests of justice to set aside the
proceedings at this belated stage. That said, we also feel that the
appellants here should be duly compensated for the costs incurred by
them in the pursuit of this litigation.
Accordingly, while we dismiss the Writ Appeal for the reasons
stated above, we also direct the State Government to pay Rs.1,00,000/-
[Rupees One Lakh] each to the two appellants, within a month from
today, towards the costs incurred by them while instituting and
pursuing this litigation before this Court.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
prp/
W.A.No.227/2025 :: 14 ::
2025:KER:47316
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ROAD MAP PUBLISHED BY THE
KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ON ITS
WEBSITE WHICH WOULD SHOW THE STATE HIGHWAYS
PASSING THROUGH KOTTAYAM DISTRICT AND ALSO
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS PASSING THROUGH.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF MAP OF THE THE PARTICULAR AREA
IN QUESTION VIZ. KURUPPANTHARA MAGNIFIED
FROM ANNEXURE A1.
Annexure R5 (a) True Copy of the Detailed Project Submitted
by KITCO (Relevant Portion)
Annexure R5 (b) True Copy of the relevant google Map image
Annexure R5 (c) True Copy of the relevant PWD map showing
the road as Major District map
Annexure R5 (d) True Copy of the latest value of Train
vehicle unit at Kuruppanthara level crossing
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
Exhibit R2(k) A true copy of the plan prepared on
07.03.2023 by the RBDCK and has been
approved by the Southern Railway.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
