Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. BHASKARAN PILLAI & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court,
made on July 24,1991 Writ Appeal No.86 of 1990.
The admitted position is that an extent of 1.94 acres
of land was acquired way back in 1952 for construction of
national highway. The construction was completed in 1955.
out of the extent of 1.94 acres, 80 cents of land were used
and the balance land remained unused. When respondent No.1
had applied for sale of the property by dated December
21,1979, the property was sought to be sold to him at the
same rate at which compensation was awarded under Section
11, that was interdicted by way of writ petitions. The
sheet-anchor of the Government to sustain the action is the
executive order issued by the Government for permission for
alienation of the land. The High Court has declared the
executive action as invalid in the light of the Kerala Land
Assignment Act, 1960 (Act 30 of 1960) (for short, the
‘Act’). The high court has pointed out that the assignment
is in contravention of the Act. Thus, this appeal by special
leave.
In view of admitted section that the land in question
was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested
in the State free from all encumbrances. The question
emerges: whether the Government can assign the land to the
erstwhile owners? It is settled law that land is acquired
for a public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land
could be used for any other purpose. In case there is no
other public purpose for which the land is needed, then
instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner,
the land should be put to public auction and the amount
Fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the
public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of
Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the
executive order is not in consonance with the provision of
the Act and is, therefore, invalid. under these
circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in
declaring the executive order as invalid. whatever
assignment is made, should be for a public purpose.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only
through the public actions so that the public also gets
benefited by getting higher value.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.