ABRAHAM MATHAI versus SUB-COLLECTOR (LAND ACQ. OFFICER) AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 27-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ABRAHAM MA TIIAI 
A 
v. 
't 
SUB-COLLECTOR (LAND ACQ. OFFICER) AND ORS. 
JULY 27, 1990 
[B.C. RAY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Land Acquisition Act, 196 I-Kera/a Land Acquisition 
Rules 1963-Section 6/ Rules 5(b)(6) and 6-Land requisitioned at the 
r-
instance of private school-Whether officer of the Department to he 
' 
heard on objections by the owner. 
The appellant owned land bearing R.S. Nos. 44 /ll and 44 f20 in 
c 
village Thottapuzhasseri in Kerala State. Respondent 3, M.M.A. High 
School moved an application under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (i) 
'..,,• 
of Section I of Chapter 6 of the Land Acquisition Manual before the 
State's Education Department praying that the aforesaid land be 
requisitioned for a public purpose for construction of a playground for 
D 
the school. The State authorities after complying with the requirements 
of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, issued a declaration under 
Section 6 of the Act stating the lands described therein were needed for 
a public purpose viz. construction of a playground for the school. The 
appellant challenged the validity of the declaration hy filing a writ 
,~ 
petition before the High Court, contending, that (i) the proposal to 
E 
acquire the property was mala fide; (ii) that the declaration was 
bad as no notice was issued to the Education Departmen~ as required by 
Rule S(b) and (c) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules and (iii) that the 
appellant needed the property for construction of houses for his sons. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no 
F 
violation of the provisions of Rule S(b) and (c) of the Rules nor was there 
any infringement of Rule 6. Hence this appeal by the appellant by certificate. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The requisition in the instant case, was not made at the 
instance of the Government Department but at the instance of the 
G 
Manager, private school and the Education Department merely has 
given a note certifying that the purpose of the requisition is a public 
purpose and that the school agreed to bear the entire costs. [544C-D] 
---""'-~ 
It cannot therefore be contended that the requisition bas been 
made by the Education Department or by its officer for acquisition of 
H 
the land in question. [54 lC] 
535 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court has rightly held that there has been no violation 
of Rule S(b) and (c) or 6 of the Rules. [541F] 
t 
B 
That it is inappropriate to issue notice to the Education Officer or 
Departmental Officer who certified about the public purpose as well as 
readiness of the school authority to pay the entire money for acquisition 
and failure to issue such a notice to the Departmental Officer would not 
amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and infringement 
of the said Rule S(b) and (c) of the said Rules. [541F-G] 
' 
Lonappan v. Sub-Collector, Palghat, AIR 1959 Kerala 343; 
State of Madras and Ors. v. Periakkal and Ors., AIR 1974 Madras 383 
C 
and State of Mysore and Ors. v. V.K. Kangan and Ors., [1976] I SCR 
369 at 371, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 186 •, 
of 1976. 
D 
Appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 
27.10.1975 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 3743 of 1973. 
A jit Pudussery and B .P. Singh for the Appellant. 
A.S. Nambiar, K.R. Nambiar, V.J. Francis and N.M. Popli for 
,1., 
IE 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, J. The appellant who is owner of land comprised in R.S. 
Nos. 44/11 and 44/20 in village Thottapuzhasseri in Alleppey District, 
F 
assailed the validity of the declaration made under Section 6 of the 
Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962) made by the 2nd 
Respondent, Board of Revenue, Kerala State on 25.9.1973 and 
published in Kerala Gazette dated October 16, 1973 stating that the 
lands described therein are needed for a public purpose namely for a 
playground for M.M.A. High School and directing the Revenue Divi-
G 
sional Officer, Changannur to order for acquisition of the same. 
The grounds on which the challenge was made in the writ peti-
tion inter alia were that the property in question was mortgaged with 
the Maramon Marthomite Church, as the Church refused to return the 
property on accepting the money, the appellant filed a suit for redemp-
H 
tion of the mortgage which was ultimately decreed and appellant got 
--
ABRAHAM v. SUB-COLLECTOR [RAY, J.[ 
537 
pos

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.