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 NO.32628/2010 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.