Kerala High Court
Percivell Charitable Trust vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) 7161/2013 :1:
2025:KER:35795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7161 OF 2013
PETITIONERS:
1 PERCIVELL CHARITABLE TRUST
AP II/132, ANDOORKONAM PANCHAYATH,
KARAMOODU, THONNAKKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695317
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE,
SMT.TERESA DESMOND.
2 DILIP J DESMOND
PERCIVELL HOME, KARAMOODU,MANGALAPURAM,
THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695317.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN
SRI.K.T.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
WP(C) 7161/2013 :2:
2025:KER:35795
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION)
& EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TECHNO PARK, KAZHAKOOTTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582.
6 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDARL.A
& S.P.V.L. NO.III, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY ADVS.
R1-4 &6 BY GP SMT.RESMI THOMAS
SRI.ANIL THOMAST
R5 BY SMT.K.V.RESHMI,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON 26.05.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) 7161/2013 :3:
2025:KER:35795
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner, a charitable Trust, and the
second petitioner, one of its Trustees, have filed this
writ petition aggrieved by the Government's rejection
of the request for exemption of their property from
acquisition.
2. The 1st petitioner Trust is running a school,
namely, Bishop Pereira Memorial School at Karmoodu
in Thiruvananthapuram District having standards up
to twelfth. The school is in existence for over 34
years in a rural, agricultural area, primarily serving
students from middle and lower-middle-class
backgrounds. It offers free education to economically
weaker students and has over 9,000 students. The
school campus comprises of 3.79 acres of land in Re-
WP(C) 7161/2013 :4:
2025:KER:35795
Sy. Nos.19/5-1, 19/5-2 and 19/5-3 of Andoorkonam
village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The 2nd petitioner,
who is one of the Trustees, has leased out the
aforesaid 3.79 acres of land to the Trust for running
the school for a period of 35 years. Another extent of
80 cents of land in Re-Sy. No.19/2 and 20 cents in
Re-Sy. No.19/2-1 of Andoorkonam village are also in
the possession and enjoyment of the Trust for the
school. The Trust is in absolute possession of the
aforesaid properties which are garden lands lying
contiguously. The school campus consists of school
buildings, office, play ground, but the existing
infrastructure is insufficient to meet the growing
demand for admissions. Due to space constraints and
lack of additional infrastructure facilities, the school is
WP(C) 7161/2013 :5:
2025:KER:35795
not able to cater to the needs of the locality fully. The
petitioners state that they plan to expand the
infrastructure by constructing additional buildings, a
swimming pool, a play ground, an indoor stadium,
and other facilities, and the immediate priority of the
school is to have a full fledged play ground with
various facilities.
3. While so, the Government, the 1 st respondent,
issued Ext. P1 order dated 19.12.2005 granting
administrative sanction to acquire an extent of 732
acres of land in various survey numbers in
Pallipuram, Vailoor, Melthonnakkal and
Andoorkkonam villages of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk
for the creation of infrastructure for the proposed
Technocity as Phase IV development of Technopark
WP(C) 7161/2013 :6:
2025:KER:35795
invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A Act, for short). A
portion of the land where the school campus is
situated was also included in Ext. P1. On coming to
know of the proposed acquisition, the 1 st petitioner
submitted Ext. P2 representation to the District
Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, stating that the land
comprised in Sy. Nos. 19/2, 19/5, and 19/6 of
Andoorkonam Village belongs to the petitioner Trust
where the aforesaid school is run by the Trust and
requested that the said land be exempted from
acquisition.
4. Later, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P3 order
dated 21.02.2006 by which administrative sanction
was accorded for acquisition of 507 acres of land for
WP(C) 7161/2013 :7:
2025:KER:35795
setting up the Technocity as Phase IV development of
Technopark invoking the urgency clause under
Section 17(1) of the L.A Act. Ext. P3 also covered a
portion of the school campus. Later, the Government
issued Ext. P4 Notification dated 04.10.2006 under
Section 4(1) of the L.A Act proposing to acquire an
extent of 507 acres of land in Pallipuram, Vailoor,
Melthonnakkal and Andoorkkonam villages in
Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The property of the
school is also included in the notification.
5. The petitioners state that, after more than
one year from the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4(1), the 2 nd respondent,
the Commissioner of Land Revenue issued Ext. P5
dated 03.12.2007 under Section 6(1) of the L.A Act
WP(C) 7161/2013 :8:
2025:KER:35795
declaring that the lands covered by the notification
are required for a public purpose, namely, for
establishment of Technocity near Pallipuram. The
petitioners further state that since no notice was
issued to them and the application for exemption was
pending with the District Collector, they did not take
any further steps.
6. Thereafter, the 6th respondent, the Special
Tahsildar (LA) issued Ext. P6 notice dated
26.12.2009 under Section 9(3) of the L.A Act
informing the petitioners that the Government
proposed to take possession of an extent of 51 ares
of land in Sy. No.19/15 (L.A. Sub-Division) originally
comprised in Re-Sy Nos.19/5-1, 19/5-2 and 19/5-3 of
Andoorkkonam Village. On receipt of Ext. P6 notice,
WP(C) 7161/2013 :9:
2025:KER:35795
the 1st petitioner submitted Ext. P7 representation
dated 09.01.2010 before the District Collector
informing that the request for exemption is pending
before the Government and that as the land sought
to be acquired belongs to a public institution namely,
school, the same may be exempted. The 1 st petitioner
also submitted Ext. P8 representation dated
14.01.2010 before the Chief Minister pointing out
these facts.
7. Subsequently, the Special Tahsildar (LA)
issued Ext. P9 notice dated 11.03.2010 under Rule
15(3) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990,
informing that 51 ares of land in Sy. No. 19/15, Block
No. 8 had been acquired by the Government under
the L.A Act for the Technocity project, and directing
WP(C) 7161/2013 :10:
2025:KER:35795
the 2nd petitioner to deliver vacant possession on
26.03.2010. Along with Ext. P9, Ext. P10 notice dated
11.03.2010 was also issued, stating that an award
had been passed in LAC No. 146/09 on 27.01.2010 in
respect of the same property in favour of the land
owner.
8. On receipt of Ext.P9 notice, the 1 st petitioner
submitted Ext. P11 reply dated 23.03.2010 intimating
that as the application for exemption is pending with
the competent authorities, further proceedings may
be kept in abeyance. The petitioners state that the
Special Tahsildar (LA) had assured that further
proceedings will be taken only after receipt of
instructions from the Government. The petitioners
also state that the possession of the property was
WP(C) 7161/2013 :11:
2025:KER:35795
neither handed over by the petitioners nor taken over
by the respondents.
9. Later, the Government issued Ext. P13 letter
dated 02.08.2010 in response to Ext. P8
representation stating that the 51 ares of land in Sy.
No. 19/5, Block No. 8 of Andoorkkonam Village,
belonging to the petitioners, cannot be exempted
from acquisition as requested. However, no reasons
were stated in Ext. P13 for rejecting the request.
10. Petitioners challenged Ext. P13 before this
Court by filing W.P (C) No.32628 of 2010. The writ
petition was admitted and this Court passed Ext. P14
interim order dated 28.10.2010 directing the
respondents to maintain status quo as on date, if the
possession is not taken over. Subsequently, this
WP(C) 7161/2013 :12:
2025:KER:35795
Court, by Ext. P15 judgment dated 26.09.2012,
quashed Ext. P13 order and directed the Government
to reconsider the petitioners' request in light of Ext.
P16 Government order dated 04.05.2011. In Ext.
P16, the Government had exempted 9 acres of
garden land in Sy. No.37 of Andoorkkonam Village,
lying adjacent to the property of the petitioners and
belonging to the Latin Archdiocese of
Thiruvananthapuram, which was originally included in
the list for acquisition, pursuant to representations
made by the land owner. This Court ordered that the
interim order granted as per Ext. P14 shall continue
until final orders are passed on Ext. P8.
11. Pursuant to Ext.P15 judgment, the 1 st
respondent issued Ext. P17 order dated 17.01.2013
WP(C) 7161/2013 :13:
2025:KER:35795
informing that 51 ares of land in Sy. No.19/5 in Block
No.8 of Andoorkkonam village cannot be exempted
from acquisition since the CEO, Technopark has
reported that if the petitioners' land is exempted, the
adjoining acquired properties will remain as isolated
lands causing adverse effect on the Technocity
project. It is further stated therein that the Land
Acquisition Authority has already handed over the
land to Technopark and transfer of registry of land
has been effected in its favour. The relevant portion
of Ext. P17 reads as follows:
"Government have examined the
petition of the Managing Trustee, Bishop
Pereira Memorial School
Thiruvananthapuram afresh and in the
light of G.O (Ms) No.15/2011/ITD dated
04.05.2011 and found the following.
WP(C) 7161/2013 :14:
2025:KER:35795
An extent of 3.71.60 Hectares of land
in possession of Latin Archdiocese of
Thiruvanathapuram in Re Sy. No.37/2 in
Block No.8 of Andoorkonam village were
exempted from acquisition as per the
reference 1st cited, considering that the
exemption will not affect the working of
the Technocity project.
M/s Percivell Charitable Trust has
requested Government to exempt 51
Ares (1.22 Acres) of land, which is a
part of Bishop Pereira Memorial School
play ground in Sy. No19/5 in
Andoorkonam village from land
acquisition for Technology project, since
the land is used as the play ground of
the school run by the Trustee.
The Technopark CEO, in his letter
dated 27-11-2012 has informed that if
the land in question is exempted, the
adjoining acquired properties will
remain as an isolated land parcels
causing adverse effect on Technocity
project. He further clarified that, the
land acquisition authority has already
handed over the land to the Technopark
and the transfer of registry of the land
has also been effected in favour of
Technopark as per TP account no.
9512/B8 of Andoorkonam village.
WP(C) 7161/2013 :15:
2025:KER:35795
Technopark has paid the basic tax for
the land up to 2011-2012. Therefore
the land is in the absolute ownership
and possession of Technopark and no
others have any manner of right over
the property. The District Collector
Thiruvananthapuram has also upheld
the views of the CEO, Technopark.
In the circumstances, the request of
the Managing Trustee, Bishop Pereira
Memorial School Thiruvananthapuram
for the exemption of 51 Ares of land in
Sy. No.19/5 in Andoorkonam village is
devoid of any merit and is rejected. The
Judgment dated 26-09-2012 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C)
No.32628/2010 filed by M/s Percivell
Charitable Trust is hereby complied
with."
12. The petitioners state that the reasons stated
in Ext. P17 for denying exemption are legally
unsustainable and per se discriminatory. The
petitioners contend that Ext. P17 was issued without
verifying the facts and without proper application of
WP(C) 7161/2013 :16:
2025:KER:35795
mind. It is stated that the land which is proposed to
be acquired is the play ground of the school and is
required for the development of the school and it is
highly arbitrary and unreasonable on the part of the
Government to acquire the land of an existing public
service like a school and hand it over to Technopark
for establishing private companies with commercial
interests alone. It is contended that due to the
arbitrary invocation of power under Section 17(4) of
the L.A Act, the petitioners lost their remedy to file
objection under Section 5A. It is further stated that
there is inconsistency in the extent of land notified for
acquisition in Exts. P4 and P5. It is therefore
contended that the inclusion and exclusion of
properties on the basis of extraneous considerations
WP(C) 7161/2013 :17:
2025:KER:35795
is not in public interest. The petitioners also contend
that the Government is adopting a discriminatory
stand against the petitioners while exempting other
similarly situated land owners. It is pointed out that,
by Ext. P16, an extent of 9 acres of garden land
lying adjacent to the property of the petitioners and
belonging to the Latin Archdiocese which was
originally included in the list for acquisition was later
exempted by the Government pursuant to
representations made by the land owner and the said
land is even now lying unused. So also, an
international school under construction in about 5
acres of land and Model Public School and the area
around it which are situated in the hub of Technocity
headquarters have been fully exempted. Large
WP(C) 7161/2013 :18:
2025:KER:35795
extents of unused land in Pallippuram village were
also exempted. The petitioners contend that if these
larger unused lands could be exempted, there is no
valid reason to deny exemption to the school's
smaller plot and that the said stand of the
Government is discriminatory and if the petitioners'
land is exempted, no harm will be caused to the
Technopark project. Referring to Ext. P19 news
report, it is stated that the Government have issued
orders to provide 10 acres of land in the Technocity
Campus for setting up a garbage treatment plant
from out of the land acquired for the IT park which
indicates that the acquired land is being used for
purposes other than the core Technocity project.
WP(C) 7161/2013 :19:
2025:KER:35795
13. The petitioners also state that the reason
stated by the Government in Ext. P17 for denying
exemption cannot be sustained, as four acres of land
adjacent to the school's property have been set aside
for rehabilitating 53 families evicted by the
Technopark project, thereby disrupting the very
continuity of the acquired land. It is stated that the
failure to retain the land could result in the school
losing its recognition and reputation, due to its
inability to meet statutory standards and conditions,
thereby significantly affecting its prospects for future
development. It is further contended that the school
has been established by a minority community, and is
entitled to protection under Article 30 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed
WP(C) 7161/2013 :20:
2025:KER:35795
this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P17 order and
to declare that 51 ares of land in Sy. No.19/5 of
Andoorkkonam Village belonging to the petitioners is
liable to be exempted from acquisition for the
Technopark and to restrain the respondents from
acquiring the said land.
14. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the Government stating that the Government have
rejected the plea of the petitioners after a detailed
enquiry. It is stated that the petitioners' application
for exemption from acquisition was not entertained,
as it was found that granting such an exemption
would adversely affect the project. Unlike the other
exempted properties, the property in question lies
between the acquired lands, and exempting it would
WP(C) 7161/2013 :21:
2025:KER:35795
result in the formation of an isolated bay extending
into the project area. It is stated that as per Ext. P1,
sanction was accorded to acquire 732 acres of land in
various survey numbers of Pallippuram,
Andoorkonam, Veiloor, and Melthonnakkal villages in
Thiruvananthapuram Taluk invoking the urgency
clause under L.A Act for establishing Technocity as
Phase IV of Technopark. This was later reduced to
507 acres, as per Ext. P3, to minimize mass
displacement. It is further stated that an extent of 51
ares (1.26 acres) of land in Re.sy No. 19/5 (LA Sy.
No. 19/15), Block No. 8 of Andoorkkonam Village,
was acquired, and as per the revenue records
available with the land acquisition authority, a total of
1.53 hectares (3.78 acres), comprising 42.21 ares in
WP(C) 7161/2013 :22:
2025:KER:35795
Re.sy. No. 19/5-1, 50.36 ares in Re.sy No. 19/5-2,
and 60.43 ares in Re.sy No. 19/5-3, all within the
same block and village, was registered under TP
Account No. 6526 in the name of the 2 nd petitioner
and not in favour of the 1 st petitioner Trust which
claims absolute ownership over the said property. It
is also asserted that the play ground of the school
has not been acquired.
15. It is further stated that the 1 st petitioner had
submitted representation before Government for
exemption of land from acquisition on the plea that
the land is being used as the play ground of the
school run by the Trust. However, the land is a piece
of rubber plantation having more than 300 rubber
trees and other trees and not the play ground of
WP(C) 7161/2013 :23:
2025:KER:35795
school and is lying between the properties acquired
from other land owners. If the land is exempted, the
adjoining acquired properties will remain as isolated
land parcels causing adverse effect on Technocity
project. Despite receiving notices, the Trust did not
vacate the land. Consequently, the land acquisition
authority took possession of the land on 12.08.2010
and handed over to Technopark on the same day. The
transfer of registry of the land has been effected in
favour of Technopark as per TP account No.9512/B8
of Andoorkkonam village and basic tax has been paid
for the period up to 2011-2012. The land is in the
absolute ownership and possession of Technopark. It
is further stated that the property in the possession
of Latin Archdiocese of Thiruvananthapuram referred
WP(C) 7161/2013 :24:
2025:KER:35795
to in Ext. P16 is lying as an isolated single plot
without touching any other acquired properties and it
was exempted from acquisition considering that the
exemption will not affect the working of Technocity
project. The subject property of the petitioners is
lying between the acquired properties and its
exemption will adversely affect the Technocity
project. It is stated that the land in the ownership
and possession of Asian School of Business is
exempted as it comes under the project of
Technocity. The 1st respondent has produced sketches
to show that the subject property is lying between
the other acquired properties and that if the land is
exempted the adjoining acquired properties will
remain as isolated land parcels. It is stated that the
WP(C) 7161/2013 :25:
2025:KER:35795
Government have examined all aspects of the matter
and found that the request of the petitioners for the
exemption of the subject land is devoid of any merit
and hence it has been rejected as per Ext P17.
16. As regards the contention of the petitioners
that the declaration contemplated under Section 6(1)
of the L.A Act was issued after the expiry of more
than one year from the date of publication of
notification under Section 4(1), the 1 st respondent
states that Section 4(1) notification was published at
the acquisition site on 05.12.2006 and the last draft
declaration was published in the Extra Ordinary
Gazette and in two local dailies within the statutory
period of one year from the date of publication of
Section 4(1) notification. It is stated that the draft
WP(C) 7161/2013 :26:
2025:KER:35795
declaration for the second phase, which includes the
petitioners' property was published on 03.12.2007,
within the statutory time limit. It is stated that after
the publication of draft declaration, the Land
Acquisition Officer issued Ext. P6 notice under section
9(3) of the L.A Act to the 2 nd petitioner for producing
records to prove the title over the property under
acquisition. As no records were produced, the Officer
relied on revenue records which showed the land
registered in the name of the 2nd petitioner. An award
under LAC No. 146/09 was passed on 27.01.2010
granting compensation of Rs.42,85,718/- in the 2 nd
petitioner's name. However, since no one established
clear title, the compensation was ordered to be
deposited in Court under Section 31(2) of the L.A Act
WP(C) 7161/2013 :27:
2025:KER:35795
and the matter was referred for adjudication. Later,
Ext. P9 notice was issued directing the awardee to
vacate and hand over possession of the land on
26.03.2010, and also issued Ext. P10 notice showing
the amount awarded as compensation for the land.
The 1st respondent has produced the copy of the
award as Ext. R1 (C). It is stated that the land was
taken into possession on 12.08.2010.
17. It is further stated in the counter affidavit
that the Government have issued no orders for
providing ten acres of land for setting up garbage
treatment plant in the land acquired for Technocity
and that Ext. P19 paper report is baseless. As regards
the averment that rehabilitating 53 families evicted
by the Technopark project would break the continuity
WP(C) 7161/2013 :28:
2025:KER:35795
of the acquired land, it is stated that the area
remaining after allotment for rehabilitation in
Andoorkkonam village is lying beside the eastern
boundary of the subject land and extends to the
northern side of the side road. It is stated that the
purpose of acquisition is for setting up of Technocity,
an IT hub with international standards and has clearly
a public purpose in it. The Government have
examined Ext.P8 representation of the 1 st petitioner
and found that it is devoid of any merit and hence
rejected. Accordingly, the 1st respondent prays for
rejecting the writ petition.
18. The 5th respondent, the Chief Executive
Officer of Technopark, has filed a counter affidavit
WP(C) 7161/2013 :29:
2025:KER:35795
largely in line with the one filed by the 1 st respondent
and denying the averments in the writ petition.
19. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit to
the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 5
reiterating their stand in the writ petition and denying
the averments in the counter affidavits.
20. Heard Sri. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader
and Smt. Reshmi K.V, the learned standing counsel
for the 5th respondent.
21. The 1st respondent issued Ext. P3 order on
21.02.2006 according administrative sanction for the
acquisition of 507 acres of land for setting up
Technocity as Phase IV of the Technopark
development, by invoking the urgency clause under
WP(C) 7161/2013 :30:
2025:KER:35795
Section 17(1) of the L.A Act. Pursuant to this, Section
4(1) notification and Section 6(1) declaration were
issued, an award was passed on 27.01.2010, and
possession was taken on 12.08.2010 and transfer of
registry was effected. The prayers in Exts. P2, P7, P8,
P11, and P12 submitted by the petitioners before the
authorities were only for exemption of 51 ares of land
in Sy. No. 19/15 of Andoorkkonam Village from
acquisition. The petitioners never raised any
grievance regarding the invocation of the urgency
clause, the validity of the Section 4(1) notification or
Section 6(1) declaration, or any discrepancy in the
extent of land notified at the appropriate stage.
Without raising proper objections then and there,
petitioners cannot be heard to say that the
WP(C) 7161/2013 :31:
2025:KER:35795
acquisition is bad in any manner. Therefore, it is not
necessary for this Court to examine the question of
urgency, the exercise of power under Section 17(4) of
the L.A Act, the validity of the Section 4(1)
notification or the Section 6(1) declaration, or any
discrepancy in the extent of land notified, in this writ
petition. What was directed by this Court in Ext. P15
judgment was to consider the petitioners' claim for
exemption, as raised in Ext. P8 representation,
afresh. Therefore, this Court has to examine the
legality of Ext. P17 whereby their claim for exemption
has been rejected.
22. The reasons stated in Ext. P17 for rejecting
the request of the 1st petitioner for exemption of 51
WP(C) 7161/2013 :32:
2025:KER:35795
ares of land in Sy. No.19/5 of Andoorkkonam Village
from acquisition are as follows:
(i). If the said land is exempted, the
adjoining acquired properties will
remain as an isolated land parcels
causing adverse effect on Technocity
project.
(ii). The land acquisition auhority has
already handed over the land to the
Technopark and the transfer of
registry of the land has also been
effected in favour of Technopark as
per TP account No. 9512/B8 of
Andoorkonam Village. Technopark has
paid the basic tax for the land up to
2011-12.Therefore the land is in
absolute ownership and possession of
Technopark and no others have any
manner of right over the property.
23. The foremost question to be considered is
whether the property sought to be exempted
constitutes the play ground of the school. According
to the petitioners, the school campus comprising of
3.79 acres of land has been leased out to the 1 st
WP(C) 7161/2013 :33:
2025:KER:35795
petitioner Trust by the 2nd petitioner, one of the
trustees, for a period of 35 years. In addition, the
Trust is having possession and enjoyment of 80 cents
and 20 cents of land in the same village which are
lying contiguously and the school campus consists of
school buildings, office, play ground etc. In the
counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 5, it is
stated that the acquired land was not used as the
school's play ground, but a rubber plantation under
the Thandapper account of the 2nd petitioner,
containing 300 rubber trees along with other trees.
The 5th respondent has produced Ext. R5(e), a copy
of the site mahazar in LAC No. 146/09 dated
06.08.2009, and Ext. R5(f), a copy of the valuation
statement approved by the District Collector in the
WP(C) 7161/2013 :34:
2025:KER:35795
same case, both of which confirm the presence of
300 rubber trees and other trees on the acquired
property. Therefore, from the materials available on
records, it can be concluded that the property sought
to be exempted from acquisition is not the play
ground of the school.
24. The petitioners have a case that the
Management intends to increase the infrastructure
facilities in the near future by constructing additional
buildings, swimming pool, play ground, indoor
stadium etc. in the property available with the school
and the immediate priority of the school is to have a
full fledged play ground with various facilities. If that
be so, the exemption sought for has to be taken as
WP(C) 7161/2013 :35:
2025:KER:35795
for future development plans rather than for present
public purpose.
25. The main reason for rejecting the petitioners'
request for exemption is that, if their land is
exempted, the adjoining acquired properties would
remain as isolated land parcels, disrupting the
continuity of the acquired land and adversely
affecting the Technocity project. In support of this
contention, respondents 1 and 5 have produced Ext.
R1(a)/R5(d) sketch. This claim is denied by the
petitioners in their reply affidavit, in which they have
produced Ext. P21 sketch. The petitioners contend
that there are several private and acquired properties
situated between their land and other acquired lands,
and therefore, the claim of loss of continuity is
WP(C) 7161/2013 :36:
2025:KER:35795
incorrect. The respondents, however, contend that
unlike other exempted properties, the land in
question lies between acquired lands, and exempting
it would result in the formation of an isolated bay
extending into the project area. The Government
have entered a finding that, if the petitioners' land is
exempted, the adjoining acquired properties will remain
as isolated land parcels disrupting the continuity of the
acquired land causing adverse effect on Technocity
project. Whether the exemption of the petitioners'
property would result in the formation of an isolated bay
extending into the project area is a question of fact.
Since the said finding of the Government pertains to a
question of fact, it does not warrant interference by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) 7161/2013 :37:
2025:KER:35795
26. This Court, by Ext. P15 judgment, quashed
Ext. P13 order and directed the Government to
consider the request of the petitioners for exemption
afresh in the light of Ext. P16 order issued by the
Government whereby an extent of 9 acres of garden
land in Sy. No.37 of Andoorkkonam Village, lying
adjacent to the property of the petitioners and
belonging to the Latin Archdiocese of
Thiruvananthapuram which was originally included in
the list for acquisition was exempted by the
Government pursuant to representations made by the
land owner. In Ext. P17, the Government have stated
that the petition submitted by the Managing Trustee
of the School was examined in light of Ext. P16
Government Order. It was noted that an extent of
WP(C) 7161/2013 :38:
2025:KER:35795
3.71.60 hectares of land in the possession of the
Latin Archdiocese in Re-Sy. No. 37/2, Block No. 8 of
Andoorkkonam Village, was exempted from
acquisition, as such exemption would not affect the
working of the Technocity project. It is further stated
that if the petitioners' land is exempted, the adjoining
acquired properties will remain as isolated land parcels
causing adverse effect on Technocity project. The
Government also noted that, Land Acquisition Authority
has already handed over the land to Technopark and
transfer of registry has been effected in favour of
Technopark and the land is in its absolute ownership
and possession. The reasons stated by the
Government in Ext. P17 for exempting the property in
the possession of the Latin Archdiocese of
WP(C) 7161/2013 :39:
2025:KER:35795
Thiruvananthapuram while not exempting the
petitioners' property, cannot be said to be irrational
or perverse, as they are supported by reasonable and
intelligible distinction. I do not find any reason to
interfere with Ext. P17 order.
27. The petitioners contend that the Government
have adopted a discriminatory stance by exempting
the properties of other similarly situated land owners
while denying the petitioners the same benefit
thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Sri. K.T. Thomas would rely on the decisions in
Hariram and another v. State of Haryana and
others [(2010) 3 SCC 621] and Sham Lal and
others v State of Punjab and others [(2013) 14
SCC 393] in support of the contention that the
WP(C) 7161/2013 :40:
2025:KER:35795
Government cannot pick and choose, and such
discriminatory treatment is unconstitutional. The
Government and the Technopark in their counter
affidavits have explained that, unlike other exempted
properties, the petitioners' property lies between
acquired lands, and exempting it would result in the
formation of an isolated bay extending into the
project area. Section 48 of the L.A Act confers a
statutory power on the Government to withdraw from
the acquisition of land provided possession has not
been taken. The L.A Act, 1894, did not have a
specific, explicit statutory provision for "exemption"
in the way it had for "withdrawal". The term
"exemption" as distinct from "withdrawal" refers to
the Government's decision not to acquire a particular
WP(C) 7161/2013 :41:
2025:KER:35795
piece of land, even if it is notified for acquisition. It
often arises from representations made by affected
land owners. The orders passed on such
representations are not quasi judicial orders.
However, it is trite law that Article 14 of the
Constitution of India applies to administrative orders
as well. The Government have taken the view that if
the petitioners' land is exempted, the adjoining
acquired properties will remain as isolated land
parcels causing adverse effect on Technocity project.
It is not possible for this Court to interfere with the
views of the Government unless it is shown to be
perverse, mala fide, or on irrelevant considerations.
The mere fact that certain land owners have been
exempted from the acquisition cannot give right to
WP(C) 7161/2013 :42:
2025:KER:35795
the petitioners to have their land also exempted from
acquisition.
28. Lastly, it is contended by the petitioners that
the land proposed to be acquired forms part of the
school play ground and is essential for the
institution's development and it is highly arbitrary
and unreasonable for the Government to acquire land
belonging to an existing public service institution like
a school and transfer it to Technopark for the
establishment of private companies driven solely by
commercial interests. I have already found that the
property sought to be exempted from acquisition is
not the play ground of the school. The petitioners
have stated that they intend to enhance the
infrastructure in the near future by constructing a
WP(C) 7161/2013 :43:
2025:KER:35795
swimming pool, a play ground, an indoor stadium,
and other related facilities in the property available
with the school. If that is the case, the exemption
sought appears to be for future development plans
rather than for any existing public purpose. The
respondents contend that the acquisition is for the
establishment of Technocity, an IT hub of
international standards, which clearly serves a public
purpose. The acquisition, therefore, addresses a
present need rather than a future one and is intended
to serve an existing public purpose. Accordingly, if
the petitioners' land is not presently being used as a
play ground, the contention that the Government is
arbitrarily acquiring land used for an existing public
WP(C) 7161/2013 :44:
2025:KER:35795
service, namely, a school play ground, for commercial
interests, cannot be sustained.
There is no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
WP(C) 7161/2013 :45:
2025:KER:35795
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2005 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.1.2006
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2006 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 4.10.2006
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION
6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.12.2009 ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.1.2010
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.1.2010
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER.
EXT.P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.3.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.3.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.3.2010
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
WP(C) 7161/2013 :46:
2025:KER:35795
EXT.P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.7.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER.
EXT.P-13 TRUE COFPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.8.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2010 IN WPC
NO.32628/2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P-15 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 26.9.2012 IN WPC
EXT.P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.5.2011 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P-17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2013 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P-18 TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE PREPARED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P-19 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT IN HINDU DATED
9.1.2012
EXT.P-20 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH.
EXT.P-21 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE SITE SKETCH
EXT.R1(B) : TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER OF REGISTRY
EXT.R1(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD
EXT.R1(D) : TRUE COPY OF VALUATION STATEMENT
EXT.R1(E) : TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT
EXT.R5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN LAC NO.146/09
DATED 27.01.10
WP(C) 7161/2013 :47:
2025:KER:35795
EXT.R5(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION MAHAZAR DATED
12.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
EXT.R5(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.05.2011 F NO.1088736 IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANDOORKONAM
EXT.R5(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LAND
ACQUIRED FOR TECHNOCITY PROJECT, DATED NIL.
EXT.R5(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR (LAC
NO.146/09) DATED 6.8.09
EXT.R5(F) : TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT
APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM (LAC
146/09) DATED NIL.
