Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Acquisition of large extent of properties at the instance of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) and the subsequent declaration of land as 'industrial area,' followed by exemption granted under Section 10 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)( in short Paddy Land Act) is the subject matter of challenge in these cases. W.P(C)No..24437 of 2010, W.P.(C) 18285 OF 2011 and W.A.No.1085 OF 2010 are in respect of the grievances projected by some owners of the lands,whereas the other two petitions i.e. W.P(C)No.15529 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.11534 of 2010 are styled as Public Interest Litigations.

7. Mr. G.S. Reghunath, the learned counsel appearing for the KINFRA submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioners/appellants is thoroughly wrong and misconceived and that the case has been projected without any regard to the 'special statute 'i.e The Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993( in short the KINFRA Act) and the pivotal status of the KINFRA constituted by the Government in terms of the said statute, to bring about development of industry and infrastructure in the best interest of the general public and for welfare of the State. The maintainability of the writ petitions/appeal is attacked contending that the proceedings W.P(C)Nos. 11534 & 15529 OF 2010, 24437 OF 2010 & 18285 OF 2011 & W.A.No.1085 OF 2010 came to be filed years after publishing Section 4(1) notification; that too, without raising any objection before the acquisitioning authority and as such, there is no merit or bonafides in the contention taken by the petitioners in W.P(C)15529 and 11534 of 2010, who are having no 'locus standi' to file the said proceedings, being not the 'persons interested' and whose properties have not been acquired. It is stated that all the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act and Act 28 of 2008 have been complied with and there is no violation of any provision of law in any manner. The writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings are much belated, having filed years after the publication of Section 4(1) notification, Sec.6 declaration and passing of the awards and under such circumstance, interference is liable to be declined in view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in 1996(1) SCC 250 (State of T.N. and others vs. L. Krishnan and others), (1996) 11 SCC 500 (R. Balakrishna Warrier vs. Santha Varassiar and another), (2000)2 SCC 48 (Municipal Council, W.P(C)Nos. 11534 & 15529 OF 2010, 24437 OF 2010 & 18285 OF 2011 & W.A.No.1085 OF 2010 Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others)and (2005) 6 SCC 493 (Government of A.P.and others vs. Kollutla Obi Reddy and others)

14. In exercise of such power, the KINFRA has framed Regulations (the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Disposal of Land Regulations, 1995). By virtue of Clause 2(U) of the Regulations, a 'subsidiary company' means a subsidiary formed by the Corporation to develop industrial infrastructure invoking the power vested with the Corporation as per clause 10(m) in the Act. Various powers are vested with the Corporation KINFRA in fixing the lease premium, revision of premium, zoning of plot etc. as given under Regulation No.8. The KINFRA reserves the right under Clause 23 of the Regulations, to utilise the vacant plots of the allotted plots at any time for the purposes mentioned therein without paying any W.P(C)Nos. 11534 & 15529 OF 2010, 24437 OF 2010 & 18285 OF 2011 & W.A.No.1085 OF 2010 compensation to the allottee for such use. The provision to reservation or revocation of the plots is dealt with under Regulation No.24 and the powers to resume the plots are dealt with under Regulation No.26. The power to cancel an allotment is separately dealt with under Regulation No.27, if it is found that the allotment was grossly inequitable or was under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation of facts and the KINFRA is always having the right to enter and inspect the plot at any time to review the progress of the project, as mentioned under Regulation No.35. By virtue of the scheme of the statute, the Regulations are to form part of the KINFRA Act and as such, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the properties are being acquired, only to allot the same to private entrepreneurs, after declaration as 'industrial area', is absolutely without any merit or bonafides .

132. It is clearly established in this case that the infrastructure development project conceived by the State and executed under the auspices of its instrumentality (APIIC) is one covered by the Act. The joint venture mechanism for implementing the policy, executing the W.P(C)Nos. 11534 & 15529 OF 2010, 24437 OF 2010 & 18285 OF 2011 & W.A.No.1085 OF 2010 project and achieving lawful public purpose for realising the goal of larger public good would neither destroy the object nor vitiate the exercise of power of public purpose for development of infrastructure. The concept of joint venture to tap resources of private sector for infrastructural development for fulfilment of public purpose has been recognised in foreign countries as also in India in several decisions of this Court.