[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Muneer A vs The State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2026
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
1
2026:KER:8335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/13TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.5347 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NANDINI THAMPATTI K.C
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O.PRABHAKARAN THIRUMULPAD,
MANJERI KOVILAKAM, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2
2026:KER:8335
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
TALUK OFFICE, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505.
6 THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
7 THE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SAMITHI
MANJERI MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, U.A. LATHEEF,
M.L.A., MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
BY ADV.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).16013/2025, THE COURT ON
02.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
3
2026:KER:8335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026/13TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.16013 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL MUNEER A
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, ALUNGAL HOUSE, MUTTIPPALAM,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121.
BY ADV.SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
4
2026:KER:8335
5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
6 THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121.
7 THE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT SAMITHI
MANJERI MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
U.A. LATHEEF, M.L.A., MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121.
BY ADV.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).5347/2025, THE COURT ON
02.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
5
2026:KER:8335
'C.R'
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in both these Writ Petitions are the land
acquisition proceedings for the development of the
Government Medical College, Manjeri, and for installation of
a K.S.E.B sub-station for the said Government Medical
College. The challenge is essentially premised on violation
of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short), specifically
on the non-consideration of an alternate place of
acquisition, which has been recommended in the Social Impact
Assessment study, under Section 4; and by the Expert Group,
under Section 7. The outcome of these Writ Petitions would
depend on the interpretation of "land acquisition at an
alternate place", as also, the scope and ambit of the same.
It requires to be noticed at the outset that this is the
third round of litigation challenging the same acquisition;
one among the earlier two, having been preferred by the
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025, herself.
2. The following list of dates will unfurl the events,
which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petitions:
[Exhibits referred herein are cited according to the
documents produced in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025].
Sl. Date Event Remarks
No.
1 16.02.2019 The 2nd respondent issued Order proposing Ext.P1
to acquire 2.8107 hectares of land, which
included petitioner's property, for the
purpose of construction of buildings for
different departments of the hospital, an
approach road and a sub-station for
K.S.E.B.
Petitioner filed Writ Petition before
this Court as W.P.(C) No.13772/2020
2 - challenging Ext.P1 Order for violating
the procedures under the 2013 Act.
3 15.09.2021 This Court took into account the stand of Ext.P3
the Government that the proposed
acquisition will proceed only after the
completion of S.I.A study and disposed of
W.P.(C) No.13772/2020, leaving open all
the contentions of the petitioner.
4 14.12.2021 The 2nd respondent issued another notice Ext.P2
revising the cost of acquisition.
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
5 02.06.2022 The S.I.A team filed report finding that Ext.P5
the proposed acquisition for the
development of the Medical College is
quite essential. However, it was pointed
out that the acquisition has its own
social impacts, wherefore, a final
decision can be taken only by the Expert
Committee.
Note:
A perusal of last chapter of Ext.P5,
which summarises the conclusion, had
merely recorded the version of the
various stakeholders as regards the
alternate proposal, without entering into
any specific finding, relegating the
issue for the final decision of the
Expert Committee.
6 11.07.2022 A sub-committee constituted by the 7 th Ext.P4
respondent to conduct a study on the
alternate proposal of land having an
extent of 50 acres, situated 2 Kms away
from the Medical College, filed report in
favour of acquiring the alternate land.
7 26.09.2022 The Expert Group under Section 7 filed Ext.P6
report finding that the project serves
public purpose and that the potential
benefits of the acquisition outweigh the
social costs and adverse social impacts.
However, the Expert Group also found that
the alternate proposal with respect to
the 50 acres of land is worth
consideration, simultaneous with the
observation that the same is a policy
decision to be taken at the discretion of
the Government.
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
8 11.07.2023 The 3rd respondent passed an Order under Ext.P7
Section 8(2) of the 2013 Act, deciding to
proceed with the acquisition.
9 - Aggrieved by Ext.P7 Order, petitioner and -
two others filed W.P.(C) No.27701/2023.
10 09.09.2024 Finding that Ext.P7 Order of the Ext.P8
Government under Section 8 is cryptic,
unsupported by reasons to arrive at the
conclusion, this Court set aside Ext.P7
Order and directed the 3 rd respondent to
pass fresh orders under Section 8(2),
after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioners.
11 28.11.2024 Petitioner and two others filed argument Ext.P9
notes projecting the alternate proposal
and espousing the difficulties caused due
to the subject acquisition.
12 26.12.2024 3rd respondent passed an Order confirming Ext.P10
to proceed with the proposed acquisition
of 2.8107 hectares of land.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 would essentially focus on the non-
consideration of the availability of the alternate place, as
also, its feasibility. Learned counsel would point out that
Ext.P5 is the S.I.A study report, wherein, there is no
mention, whatsoever, with respect to the requirement of
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
Section 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act. Coming to Ext.P6 report of
the Expert Group, the submission is that the Expert Group
specifically found that the feasibility of an alternate
place requires consideration, as per conclusion number (b)
to Ext.P6. (See, running page no.104 of the Writ Petition).
It is in derogation of that, Ext.P10 Government Order under
Section 8 of the 2013 Act has been passed, is the essential
grievance. Learned counsel would submit that, inasmuch as 50
acres is available at a distance of 2.5 Kms, of which, the
owners of, as many as, 25 acres are prepared to give the
land free of cost, non-consideration of such a proposal is
fatal. Learned counsel would rely upon a bench decision of
this Court in K.J.James and Another v. State of Kerala and
Others [2025 ICO 1337] to emphasise on the significance of
procedural lapses, which are liable to be strictly
construed. Learned counsel would point out that Section
4(4)(e) and Section 8(2) have been violated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.16013/2025 would canvass the following points in addition
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
to the points canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025. Firstly, it was pointed
out that the petitioner has 10 cents of land, which was
obtained in the year 2013 and a three-storied building has
been constructed therein in the year 2018, whereafter only
the acquisition proposal came. The petitioner has been
deprived of his livelihood, and he is seriously jeopardized,
is the point canvassed. Now, learned counsel would submit
that, if there is a small change in the alignment, the
petitioner's property can be saved, as was done in the case
of one Sazib Puthussery, made mention of in Ext.P10 report
(see page no.130 of W.P.(C) No.5347/2025). The petitioner
seeks a similar treatment in respect of his property as
well, and seeks a direction to the District Collector for
consideration of his claim. Secondly, it was pointed out
that the contents of paragraph no.13 of Ext.P10 are
meritless. Paragraph no.13 would refer to the cost involved
in acquisition of 50 acres of land, whereas it has failed to
consider the fact that, as much as 25 acres, was available
for free surrender by the respective landowners. While
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
considering the cost aspect, the cost for 25 acres has to be
deducted, is the point mooted.
5. Opposing the above submissions, learned Senior
Government Pleader pointed out that the requirements of the
2013 Act have been scrupulously followed. Insofar as the
requirement of Section 4(4)(e) is concerned, learned Senior
Government Pleader would invite the attention of this Court
to Ext.P5 (at running page nos.51 and 58), where the
alternate place has been considered by the appropriate
Government. Insofar as the appraisal by the Expert Group is
concerned, learned Senior Government Pleader would point out
that Ext.P6 is only a recommendation, which has been duly
considered by the Government in Ext.P10, vide paragraph
no.13. When the contents of paragraph no.13 offer adequate
explanation for not considering the alternate land, the same
cannot be taken as a fatal flaw, so as to interfere with
Ext.P10 Order of the Government. It is important, according
to learned Senior Government Pleader, that Ext.P6 report of
the Expert Group has found that the project serves public
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
interest and that the potential benefits will outweigh the
costs thereof. It only recommended that the availability of
an alternate place is worth consideration. The Government
has considered the same and rejected the same by Ext.P10,
for the reasons set out in paragraph no.13. Learned Senior
Government Pleader would seek dismissal of the Writ
Petitions.
6. Learned Senior Government Pleader would also submit
that the requirements of Section 4(4)(e) are the
consideration of an 'alternate place', which would mean only
a place which is alternatively available, having due regard
to the purpose of acquisition. In the instant case, the
purpose of acquisition is the expansion of the Manjeri
Medical College. Therefore, any land which is available for
acquisition for the purpose of expansion alone will partake
the character of an alternate place. A different land, at a
different place - say at a distance of 2.5 Kms - to which
either the Medical College can be completely relocated or a
few departments can be relocated, will not come within the
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
ambit of an 'alternate place' as per Section 4(4)(e) of the
2013 Act. Therefore, the recommendation of the Expert Group
itself is beyond its powers with respect to a less
displacing option, for which reason also, Ext.P10 Order
issued under Section 8 cannot be frowned upon.
7. ANALYSIS:
It could be seen from the above that the fulcrum of
controversy is the availability of another 50 acres of land,
which has been taken stock of in Ext.P5 S.I.A report; and
recommended as worth considering in Ext.P6 report of the
Expert Group. The availability of the so called alternate
place for acquisition, as recommended above, has been
repelled by the Government, while issuing the impugned
Ext.P10 Order in exercise of the powers under Section 8 of
the 2013 Act.
8. This Court primarily notice that Ext.P5 S.I.A report
goes short of the requirements in terms of Section 4 of the
2013 Act. True that Ext.P5 report finds in its conclusion
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
(at page no.45) that the acquisition is very much for a
public purpose, that is to say, the expansion of the Medical
College, Manjeri for construction of academic block, C.C.U,
residential area, mother and child department and also for
construction of approach roads. However, there is no clear
finding as regards Section 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act, where
the S.I.A study team is duty-bound to ensure that land
acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and
found not feasible. In Ayana Charitable Trust v. State of
Kerala [2025 KHC 1352], this Court found that the S.I.A
study team has no obligation under law to independently
consider the feasibility of acquisition at an alternate
place and to arrive at an independent satisfaction on that
issue. All what the S.I.A team has to ensure under Section
4(4)(e) is that, the availability of an alternate place has
been considered and found not feasible by the Competent
Authority, which is the appropriate Government. This Court
frowns upon Ext.P5 report of the S.I.A team based on its
conclusion that a final decision can be taken by the Expert
Committee constituted under Section 7 of the 2013 Act,
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
thereby abdicating its responsibility under Section 4(4) of
the 2013 Act. In this regard, it may also have to be pointed
out that a final decision cannot be taken even by the Expert
Committee and it is for the Government to take a final call.
The study report under Section 4 of the Social Impact
Assessment and the appraisal of the same by the Expert Group
under Section 7, both, are recommendary in nature, however
with a caveat that the Government, under Section 8, is duty-
bound to consider the S.I.A report and the report of the
Expert Group. This Court frowns upon the conclusion in
Ext.P5 S.I.A report, also for the reason that what is
contemplated under Section 7 is an appraisal of the Social
Impact Assessment report; and if Ext.P5 S.I.A report smacks
off the requisite data, that the same cannot be appraised by
the Expert Group, as well. However, a perusal of Ext.P6
report of the Expert Committee would indicate that the
requirements have been satisfied by the consideration of
those aspects by the Expert Group. The relevant portion of
the conclusions of the report of the Expert Group at page
no.104 of the Writ Petition are extracted here below:
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
"2013-ല ഭമ ഏല ട ക ൽ ന യമ യ നഷപര ഹ രത ന
സ ത ര തക പ നരധ വ സത ന മ ള അവക ശ ന യമ (LARR
Act 2013) വക പ! 7-ല ഉപവക പ! (5) പപക ര സ ലമട പ! - സ മ ഹ
പപത ഘ ത പഠന റ പപ ർട പ+ ള വ ദഗ!ധ സമ ത യ ലട ഏക
കണ/ മ യഅന മ ശ പ ർശകൾ.
a) മ പ റ ജ ലയ ൽഏറന ട! ത ക ൽമപ4ര വ പലജ ൽമപ4ര
ഗവ.ലമഡ കൽ പക പ6ജ! വ കസനത ന അപപപ ച! പറ ഡ ന
ലക.എസ,! ഇ.ബ . സബ!പ;ഷന പവണ ?
2.8107 ലഹകർ ഭമ
ഏല ട ക നത! ലമഡ കൽ പക പ6ജ! വ കസനത ന!
അന വ ര മ യത ന ൽ ഒര ലപ ത ത ൽപര പദത യ ണ! .
b)സ മ ഹ ഘ ത പഠനതലD അന മ റ പപ ർട!, ഭമയ
മ വ വരങൾ ജനപപത ന ധ ക6 മ യ ലപ ത
പപവർതകര മ യ നടത യ ആശയ വ ന മയ , സ
പര പശ ധന, മപ4ര ലമഡ കൽ പക പ6ജ! വ കസനതലD
പപ ധ ന എന വ പര ഗണ ക പG ൾ ന ർദ ഷ പദത യ ലട
പപതIക കലപട ന പനടങൾ പദത നടപ ക നത!
മ മ ണ ക ന സ മ ഹ ലK വ പനക 6 പപത ക സ മഹ
ആഘ തങല6ക 6 കട ത ലണന! ക ണ ന . എന ൽ
പദത ക യ സ ധ തയ ള ബദൽ ന ർപദശങ6 ലണന ആയത!
പര പശ ധ കണലമന വ ദഗM സമ ത യ ല അ ഗങ6 യ തപദശ
സNയ ഭരണ സ പന പപത ന ധ കൾ ആവശ ലപടതന സര ച!
വ ദഗM സമ ത LARR Act 2013 വക പ! 7 ഉപവക പ! 5(b) പപക ര
ഭ മ യ വ വരങ6 ലട അട സ നത ൽ ബദൽ ന ർപദശമ യ
ഉനയ കലപട മപ4ര വ പലജ ൽ പO ക! 51, ആനകയ
വ പലജ ൽ പO ക! 45 എന വയ ൽ ലപട 50 ഏകർ ഭ മ യ ലട
കര പര പശ ധ ചത ൽ ആയത! പര ഗണന ർഹമ ലണന!
ക ണ കയ ണ യ .
മപ4ര ലമഡ കൽ പക പ6ജ! വ കസനത ന! ന ർദ ഷ
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
?
2.8107 ലഹകർ ഭമ ഏല ട ത! പദത നടപ കണപമ അപത
ലമഡ കൽ പക പ6ജ ലD അ ഗIക ര നഷലപട ലത ന ന ർത
ലക ണ! ബദൽ ന ർപദശ പര ഗണ കണപമ എന
കര സർക ര ലD നയപരമ യ തIര മ നത ന
വ പവKന ധ ക രത ന വ പധയമ യ തIര മ ന ക വ നത ണ!. "
(Underlined, for emphasis)
9. It could be seen from the above that the proposed
acquisition is in public interest, has been found in the
S.I.A study and by the Expert Group. The requirement that
the potential benefits of the acquisition outweigh the
social costs and adverse social impacts, is also
specifically found. Thus, the requirements of Section 7(5)
(a) and (b) are substantially met. It is only in the context
of availability, if any, of less displacing options - a
requirement forming part of Section 7(5)(b) - that Ext.P6
report of the Expert Group opine that the alternate land
having an extent of 50 acres is worth consideration.
10. The recommendation that the alternate place for
acquisition is worth considering would pale into
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
insignificance, if the correct interpretation of that
expression is taken stock of. As already indicated, the
requirement of Section 4(4)(e) is to ensure whether land
acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and
found not feasible. It requires to be cautioned that the so
called alternate place available or pointed out should be
within the scope and scheme of acquisition, rather
compatible with the scheme of the acquisition; and not in
substitution of the very scheme of acquisition. To elucidate
in the light of the attendant facts, it is pointed out that
the scope of acquisition in the instant case is the
expansion and development of the Medical College at Manjeri.
The Medical College is located near the town, which is
functional now. All what is contemplated is the expansion
for the purpose of construction of academic block, C.C.U,
residential area, mother and child department and for
construction of approach roads, together with the
installation of a K.S.E.B sub-station. Inasmuch as the
purpose of acquisition is expansion of the existing Medical
College, any land, which is contiguous/adjacent to the
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
existing Medical College premises alone will partake the
character of an 'alternate place'. Needless to say that, the
present land, which has been notified for acquisition, is
one such land. To suggest that there is another 50 acres of
land, which is available at a distance of 2.5 Kms and that
the whole Medical College or part thereof, can be relocated
and constructed at that alternate site, tantamounts to
interfering with the discretion of the Government, as
regards its policy decision whether the existing Medical
College premises has to be expanded; or should be relocated
at a different place. Thus, the so called availability of 50
acres of land at a distance of 2.5 Kms cannot be regarded as
an 'alternate place' available for acquisition.
11. In this regard, this Court may also dilate on the
distinction between a new project, for which, acquisition is
warranted; and an acquisition required in connection with
the expansion of an existing/ongoing project. In the case of
the former, it may be possible to have the entire project
relocated to an alternate place, upon satisfying the
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
parameters that the alternate place is suitable for the
purpose for which, land is sought to be acquired. However,
in the case of an ongoing project, if the acquisition is
occasioned for the purpose of expansion/development,
alternate place can only be a land - as indicated earlier -
situated contiguous/adjacent to the existing premises; and
not a different place, altogether. An interpretation to the
contrary will certainly impinge on the Government's right
and liberty to have a policy decision as to whether the
existing Medical College has to be expanded or whether it
has to be relocated, which, it goes without saying, is
impermissible. This Court, therefore, concludes that the
plea based on the availability of an alternate place and the
allegation of the same having not been considered by the
Government, while issuing the impugned Ext.P10 Order under
Section 8 of the 2013 Act, cannot be sustained in law.
12. Apart from and independent of that above aspect, this
Court notice that sufficient reasons have been stated in
Ext.P10, as to why the 50 acres of land at a distance of
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
2.5 Kms cannot be considered as suitable. Relevant findings
in paragraph no.13 of Ext.P10 are extracted here below:
"13. The developmental activities in the hospital
are ongoing. Acquiring 50 acres of land, carrying
out construction work, and making it operational
will require a substantial amount of money and
will lead to significant delays. Additionally,
this land is located 2.5 Km far away from the
existing Medical College campus. It is clear that
a Medical College located on a single campus
provides numerous significant benefits for both
students and patients. For students, this setup
offers an enhanced learning environment,
centralized facilities, and easy access to
libraries, laboratories, and other essential
resources. For patients, a single-campus Medical
College facilitates streamlined processes for
diagnosis and treatment, ensuring coordinated care
across different Departments. The acquisition
proceedings are being carried out following the
statutory mandates under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. There
are no irregularities in the process."
13. It could be seen from the above that, as many as, four
reasons have been stated by the Government in Ext.P10, which
are culled out here below:
i) The acquisition of 50 acres of land and
carrying out construction work therein, so as to
make it operational, will require a substantial
amount of money.
ii) The same will occasion significant delay.
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
iii) The alternate land is located at a distance
of 2.5 Kms from the existing Medical College
campus.
iv) A Medical College located on a single campus
provides numerous benefits for the students, as
also, the patients, which has been further
narrated with reasons.
14. It could thus be seen that the Government has
considered the feasibility of the alternate land and has
rejected the same, citing acceptable reasons.
15. The requirement of the land being contiguous to the
existing Medical College campus, in tandem with the above
interpretation of this Court, also finds a place in
paragraph no.14 of Ext.P10, where it is specifically stated
as follows:
"14. .........Therefore, the request of the
petitioners to conduct a social impact study of
the alternate proposal for acquiring 50 Acres
of land which is not contiguous to the existing
hospital infrastructure is rejected and the
District Collector is directed to proceed with
the acquisition of the 2.8107 Hectare of land
for the development of Government Medical
College, Manjeri...."
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
16. There, the fact that the 50 acres of land is not
contiguous to the existing hospital infrastructure, has been
specifically espoused as a reason for rejection.
17. Apart from the ground based on the availability of
the alternate place, as envisaged in Section 4(4)(e) of
the 2013 Act, no other argument was pressed into service
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 before me. A perusal of the grounds
stated in the Writ Petition would also indicate that the
hallmark of the petitioner's contention is centered around
the non-consideration of the alternate place and its
feasibility, by the Government, more so when the same is
recommended in the S.I.A study report and also the report of
the Expert Group. For the reasons afore cited, the grounds
urged fail, with the result, W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 will stand
dismissed.
Coming to this Writ Petition, learned counsel for the
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
petitioner would argue one additional point, other than
accepting and adopting the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025. This
Court, therefore, need only address that additional point,
which stems from the following directions in Ext.P10:
"...Also the District Collector is directed to
take steps to examine the concern raised by
Sri.Sazib Puthussery (2 nd petitioner) that if
the proposed alignment of the acquisition could
be slightly adjusted, from the currently marked
position, specifically by shifting it 4 to 5
meters towards the southwest on one side, then
his building would be outside the purview of
acquisition."
19. The petitioner seeks a similar treatment in respect of
his property. The relief seems to be innocuous, inasmuch as
it does not interfere with the proceedings, vide Ext.P10.
Even in Ext.P10, in the case of Sri.Sazib Puthussery, all
what is directed to the District Collector is to consider
his claim by making suitable modifications to the alignment,
if feasible. There will be similar direction to the
4th respondent/District Collector to consider the petitioner's
case, as well, to explore the possibility of excluding the
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
petitioner's property/building by making slight adjustment
to the alignment. Let the above direction be considered and
Orders passed, within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Petitioner will
produce a copy of the judgment before the
4th respondent/District Collector, for compliance. W.P.(C)
No.16013/2025 is allowed to the limited extent, indicated
above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.5347 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT DATED, 16-2-2019.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 14-12-2021.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.13772/2020
DATED, 15-9-2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED, 11-7-2022.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SOCIAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY DATED, 2-6-2022.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT
COMMITTEE DATED, 26-9-2022.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.
(MS)NO.160/2023/RD DATED, 11-7-2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
No.27701/2023 DATED, 9-9-2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS
DATED, 28-11-2024.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT AS NO.G.O.(RT)3104/2024/
RD DATED, 26-12-2024.
W.P.(C) Nos.5347 and 16013 of 2025
2026:KER:8335
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.16013 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT DATED, 16-2-2019.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 14-12-2021.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED, 11-7-2022.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SOCIAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY DATED, 2-6-2022.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT
COMMITTEE DATED, 26-9-2022.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(MS)
NO.160/2023/RD DATED, 11-7-2023 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
No.27701/2023 DATED, 9-9-2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS
DATED, 28-11-2024.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER AS No.G.O.(RT)
3104/2024/RD DATED, 26-12-2024.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.
(C) NO.5347/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 10-2-2025.
