CDJ Law Journals

1. Under challenge in both these Writ Petitions are the land acquisition proceedings for the development of the Government Medical College, Manjeri, and for installation of a K.S.E.B sub-station for the said Government Medical College. The challenge is essentially premised on violation of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short), specifically on the non-consideration of an alternate place of acquisition, which has been recommended in the Social Impact Assessment study, under Section 4; and by the Expert Group, under Section 7. The outcome of these Writ Petitions would depend on the interpretation of “land acquisition at an alternate place”, as also, the scope and ambit of the same. It requires to be noticed at the outset that this is the third round of litigation challenging the same acquisition; one among the earlier two, having been preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025, herself.

2. The following list of dates will unfurl the events, which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petitions: [Exhibits referred herein are cited according to the documents produced in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025].

5	02.06.2022	The S.I.A team filed report finding that the proposed acquisition for the development of the Medical College is quite essential. However, it was pointed out that the acquisition has its own social impacts, wherefore, a final decision can be taken only by the Expert Committee.Note:A perusal of last chapter of Ext.P5, which summarises the conclusion, had merely recorded the version of the various stakeholders as regards the alternate proposal, without entering into any specific finding, relegating the issue for the final decision of the Expert Committee.	Ext.P5
6	11.07.2022	A sub-committee constituted by the 7th respondent to conduct a study on the alternate proposal of land having an extent of 50 acres, situated 2 Kms away from the Medical College, filed report in favour of acquiring the alternate land.	Ext.P4
7	26.09.2022	The Expert Group under Section 7 filed report finding that the project serves public purpose and that the potential benefits of the acquisition outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts. However, the Expert Group also found that the alternate proposal with respect to the 50 acres of land is worth consideration, simultaneous with the observation that the same is a policy decision to be taken at the discretion of the Government.	Ext.P6

8	11.07.2023	The 3rd respondent passed an Order under Section 8(2) of the 2013 Act, deciding to proceed with the acquisition.	Ext.P7
9	-	Aggrieved by Ext.P7 Order, petitioner and two others filed W.P.(C) No.27701/2023.	-
10	09.09.2024	Finding that Ext.P7 Order of the Government under Section 8 is cryptic, unsupported by reasons to arrive at the conclusion, this Court set aside Ext.P7 Order and directed the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders under Section 8(2), after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.	Ext.P8
11	28.11.2024	Petitioner and two others filed argument notes projecting the alternate proposal and espousing the difficulties caused due to the subject acquisition.	Ext.P9
12	26.12.2024	3rd respondent passed an Order confirming to proceed with the proposed acquisition of 2.8107 hectares of land.	Ext.P10

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 would essentially focus on the non- consideration of the availability of the alternate place, as also, its feasibility. Learned counsel would point out that Ext.P5 is the S.I.A study report, wherein, there is no mention, whatsoever, with respect to the requirement of Section 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act. Coming to Ext.P6 report of the Expert Group, the submission is that the Expert Group specifically found that the feasibility of an alternate place requires consideration, as per conclusion number (b) to Ext.P6. (See, running page no.104 of the Writ Petition). It is in derogation of that, Ext.P10 Government Order under Section 8 of the 2013 Act has been passed, is the essential grievance. Learned counsel would submit that, inasmuch as 50 acres is available at a distance of 2.5 Kms, of which, the owners of, as many as, 25 acres are prepared to give the land free of cost, non-consideration of such a proposal is fatal. Learned counsel would rely upon a bench decision of this Court in K.J.James and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2025 ICO 1337] to emphasise on the significance of procedural lapses, which are liable to be strictly construed. Learned counsel would point out that Section 4(4)(e) and Section 8(2) have been violated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16013/2025 would canvass the following points in addition to the points canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025. Firstly, it was pointed out that the petitioner has 10 cents of land, which was obtained in the year 2013 and a three-storied building has been constructed therein in the year 2018, whereafter only the acquisition proposal came. The petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood, and he is seriously jeopardized, is the point canvassed. Now, learned counsel would submit that, if there is a small change in the alignment, the petitioner's property can be saved, as was done in the case of one Sazib Puthussery, made mention of in Ext.P10 report (see page no.130 of W.P.(C) No.5347/2025). The petitioner seeks a similar treatment in respect of his property as well, and seeks a direction to the District Collector for consideration of his claim. Secondly, it was pointed out that the contents of paragraph no.13 of Ext.P10 are meritless. Paragraph no.13 would refer to the cost involved in acquisition of 50 acres of land, whereas it has failed to consider the fact that, as much as 25 acres, was available for free surrender by the respective landowners. While considering the cost aspect, the cost for 25 acres has to be deducted, is the point mooted.

5. Opposing the above submissions, learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the requirements of the 2013 Act have been scrupulously followed. Insofar as the requirement of Section 4(4)(e) is concerned, learned Senior Government Pleader would invite the attention of this Court to Ext.P5 (at running page nos.51 and 58), where the alternate place has been considered by the appropriate Government. Insofar as the appraisal by the Expert Group is concerned, learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that Ext.P6 is only a recommendation, which has been duly considered by the Government in Ext.P10, vide paragraph no.13. When the contents of paragraph no.13 offer adequate explanation for not considering the alternate land, the same cannot be taken as a fatal flaw, so as to interfere with Ext.P10 Order of the Government. It is important, according to learned Senior Government Pleader, that Ext.P6 report of the Expert Group has found that the project serves public interest and that the potential benefits will outweigh the costs thereof. It only recommended that the availability of an alternate place is worth consideration. The Government has considered the same and rejected the same by Ext.P10, for the reasons set out in paragraph no.13. Learned Senior Government Pleader would seek dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

6. Learned Senior Government Pleader would also submit that the requirements of Section 4(4)(e) are the consideration of an 'alternate place', which would mean only a place which is alternatively available, having due regard to the purpose of acquisition. In the instant case, the purpose of acquisition is the expansion of the Manjeri Medical College. Therefore, any land which is available for acquisition for the purpose of expansion alone will partake the character of an alternate place. A different land, at a different place - say at a distance of 2.5 Kms - to which either the Medical College can be completely relocated or a few departments can be relocated, will not come within the ambit of an 'alternate place' as per Section 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act. Therefore, the recommendation of the Expert Group itself is beyond its powers with respect to a less displacing option, for which reason also, Ext.P10 Order issued under Section 8 cannot be frowned upon.

7. ANALYSIS:

It could be seen from the above that the fulcrum of controversy is the availability of another 50 acres of land, which has been taken stock of in Ext.P5 S.I.A report; and recommended as worth considering in Ext.P6 report of the Expert Group. The availability of the so called alternate place for acquisition, as recommended above, has been repelled by the Government, while issuing the impugned Ext.P10 Order in exercise of the powers under Section 8 of the 2013 Act.

8. This Court primarily notice that Ext.P5 S.I.A report goes short of the requirements in terms of Section 4 of the 2013 Act. True that Ext.P5 report finds in its conclusion (at page no.45) that the acquisition is very much for a public purpose, that is to say, the expansion of the Medical College, Manjeri for construction of academic block, C.C.U, residential area, mother and child department and also for construction of approach roads. However, there is no clear finding as regards Section 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act, where the S.I.A study team is duty-bound to ensure that land acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible. In Ayana Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1352], this Court found that the S.I.A study team has no obligation under law to independently consider the feasibility of acquisition at an alternate place and to arrive at an independent satisfaction on that issue. All what the S.I.A team has to ensure under Section 4(4)(e) is that, the availability of an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible by the Competent Authority, which is the appropriate Government. This Court frowns upon Ext.P5 report of the S.I.A team based on its conclusion that a final decision can be taken by the Expert Committee constituted under Section 7 of the 2013 Act, thereby abdicating its responsibility under Section 4(4) of the 2013 Act. In this regard, it may also have to be pointed out that a final decision cannot be taken even by the Expert Committee and it is for the Government to take a final call. The study report under Section 4 of the Social Impact Assessment and the appraisal of the same by the Expert Group under Section 7, both, are recommendary in nature, however with a caveat that the Government, under Section 8, is duty- bound to consider the S.I.A report and the report of the Expert Group. This Court frowns upon the conclusion in Ext.P5 S.I.A report, also for the reason that what is contemplated under Section 7 is an appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment report; and if Ext.P5 S.I.A report smacks off the requisite data, that the same cannot be appraised by the Expert Group, as well. However, a perusal of Ext.P6 report of the Expert Committee would indicate that the requirements have been satisfied by the consideration of those aspects by the Expert Group. The relevant portion of the conclusions of the report of the Expert Group at page no.104 of the Writ Petition are extracted here below:

                (Underlined, for emphasis)

9. It could be seen from the above that the proposed acquisition is in public interest, has been found in the S.I.A study and by the Expert Group. The requirement that the potential benefits of the acquisition outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts, is also specifically found. Thus, the requirements of Section 7(5) (a) and (b) are substantially met. It is only in the context of availability, if any, of less displacing options - a requirement forming part of Section 7(5)(b) - that Ext.P6 report of the Expert Group opine that the alternate land having an extent of 50 acres is worth consideration.

10. The recommendation that the alternate place for acquisition is worth considering would pale into insignificance, if the correct interpretation of that expression is taken stock of. As already indicated, the requirement of Section 4(4)(e) is to ensure whether land acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible. It requires to be cautioned that the so called alternate place available or pointed out should be within the scope and scheme of acquisition, rather compatible with the scheme of the acquisition; and not in substitution of the very scheme of acquisition. To elucidate in the light of the attendant facts, it is pointed out that the scope of acquisition in the instant case is the expansion and development of the Medical College at Manjeri. The Medical College is located near the town, which is functional now. All what is contemplated is the expansion for the purpose of construction of academic block, C.C.U, residential area, mother and child department and for construction of approach roads, together with the installation of a K.S.E.B sub-station. Inasmuch as the purpose of acquisition is expansion of the existing Medical College, any land, which is contiguous/adjacent to the existing Medical College premises alone will partake the character of an 'alternate place'. Needless to say that, the present land, which has been notified for acquisition, is one such land. To suggest that there is another 50 acres of land, which is available at a distance of 2.5 Kms and that the whole Medical College or part thereof, can be relocated and constructed at that alternate site, tantamounts to interfering with the discretion of the Government, as regards its policy decision whether the existing Medical College premises has to be expanded; or should be relocated at a different place. Thus, the so called availability of 50 acres of land at a distance of 2.5 Kms cannot be regarded as an 'alternate place' available for acquisition.

11. In this regard, this Court may also dilate on the distinction between a new project, for which, acquisition is warranted; and an acquisition required in connection with the expansion of an existing/ongoing project. In the case of the former, it may be possible to have the entire project relocated to an alternate place, upon satisfying the parameters that the alternate place is suitable for the purpose for which, land is sought to be acquired. However, in the case of an ongoing project, if the acquisition is occasioned for the purpose of expansion/development, alternate place can only be a land - as indicated earlier - situated contiguous/adjacent to the existing premises; and not a different place, altogether. An interpretation to the contrary will certainly impinge on the Government's right and liberty to have a policy decision as to whether the existing Medical College has to be expanded or whether it has to be relocated, which, it goes without saying, is impermissible. This Court, therefore, concludes that the plea based on the availability of an alternate place and the allegation of the same having not been considered by the Government, while issuing the impugned Ext.P10 Order under Section 8 of the 2013 Act, cannot be sustained in law.

12. Apart from and independent of that above aspect, this Court notice that sufficient reasons have been stated in Ext.P10, as to why the 50 acres of land at a distance of 2.5 Kms cannot be considered as suitable. Relevant findings in paragraph no.13 of Ext.P10 are extracted here below:

                  “13. The developmental activities in the hospital are ongoing. Acquiring 50 acres of land, carrying out construction work, and making it operational will require a substantial amount of money and will lead to significant delays. Additionally, this land is located 2.5 Km far away from the existing Medical College campus. It is clear that a Medical College located on a single campus provides numerous significant benefits for both students and patients. For students, this setup offers an enhanced learning environment, centralized facilities, and easy access to libraries, laboratories, and other essential resources. For patients, a single-campus Medical College facilitates streamlined processes for diagnosis and treatment, ensuring coordinated care across different Departments. The acquisition proceedings are being carried out following the statutory mandates under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. There are no irregularities in the process.”

13. It could be seen from the above that, as many as, four reasons have been stated by the Government in Ext.P10, which are culled out here below:

                  i) The acquisition of 50 acres of land and carrying out construction work therein, so as to make it operational, will require a substantial amount of money.

                  ii) The same will occasion significant delay.

                  iii) The alternate land is located at a distance of 2.5 Kms from the existing Medical College campus.

                  iv) A Medical College located on a single campus provides numerous benefits for the students, as also, the patients, which has been further narrated with reasons.

14. It could thus be seen that the Government has considered the feasibility of the alternate land and has rejected the same, citing acceptable reasons.

15. The requirement of the land being contiguous to the existing Medical College campus, in tandem with the above interpretation of this Court, also finds a place in paragraph no.14 of Ext.P10, where it is specifically stated as follows:

                  “14. …......Therefore, the request of the petitioners to conduct a social impact study of the alternate proposal for acquiring 50 Acres of land which is not contiguous to the existing hospital infrastructure is rejected and the District Collector is directed to proceed with the acquisition of the 2.8107 Hectare of land for the development of Government Medical College, Manjeri. ”

16. There, the fact that the 50 acres of land is not contiguous to the existing hospital infrastructure, has been specifically espoused as a reason for rejection.

17. Apart from the ground based on the availability of the alternate place, as envisaged in Section 4(4)(e) of the 2013 Act, no other argument was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 before me. A perusal of the grounds stated in the Writ Petition would also indicate that the hallmark of the petitioner's contention is centered around the non-consideration of the alternate place and its feasibility, by the Government, more so when the same is recommended in the S.I.A study report and also the report of the Expert Group. For the reasons afore cited, the grounds urged fail, with the result, W.P.(C) No.5347/2025 will stand dismissed.

18.    W.P.(C).No.16013/2025

Coming to this Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue one additional point, other than accepting and adopting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5347/2025. This Court, therefore, need only address that additional point, which stems from the following directions in Ext.P10:

                  “...Also the District Collector is directed to take steps to examine the concern raised by Sri.Sazib Puthussery (2nd petitioner) that if the proposed alignment of the acquisition could be slightly adjusted, from the currently marked position, specifically by shifting it 4 to 5 meters towards the southwest on one side, then his building would be outside the purview of acquisition.”

19. The petitioner seeks a similar treatment in respect of his property. The relief seems to be innocuous, inasmuch as it does not interfere with the proceedings, vide Ext.P10. Even in Ext.P10, in the case of Sri.Sazib Puthussery, all what is directed to the District Collector is to consider his claim by making suitable modifications to the alignment, if feasible. There will be similar direction to the 4th respondent/District Collector to consider the petitioner's case, as well, to explore the possibility of excluding the petitioner's property/building by making slight adjustment to the alignment. Let the above direction be considered and Orders passed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 4th respondent/District Collector, for compliance. W.P.(C) No.16013/2025 is allowed to the limited extent, indicated above.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide