STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
A
"
v.
M. BHASKARAN PILLAI AND ANR.
MAY 5, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
B
Kera/a Land Assignment Act, 1960 :
Land acquil·ed in 1952 under Land Acquisition Act-Balance land
remained unutilised-Govemment selling the land in 1979 to erstwhile land- c
owner at ·the same rate at which compensation for acquired land was
awarded-Sale interdicted in Writ petition-Action def ended as an executive
order of Govemme11t--High Court declaring the executive order invalid in the
light of the AcbHeld order of High Court is justifieti-By operation of s.16
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired land vested in State-Land if not
D
required for any other public purpose should. be put to public auction and the
amount so fetched can be utilised for public purpose-Land Acquisition Act,
189~S.16.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3628 of
1997.
-E
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.91 of the Kerala High
Court in W.A. No. 86 of 1990.
G. Prakash for the Appellants.
F
Varghese Kalliath, Romy Chacko and M.K. Michael for the Respon-
dent No. 2.
Roy Abraham for Baby Krishnan for the Respondent No. 1.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
·r
Leave granted.
'<....--
This app.eal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on July 24, 1991 in Writ Appeal
No. 86 of 1990.
H
87
A
B
c
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
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 proceedings 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 the admitted position that the land in question was
D acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16
of 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 if the land is
acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the
rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there
E 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 Priii~iples of the
Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order
F
is not in' consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid.
G
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. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold
only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by
getting higher value.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex