LARR Act, 2013 | Kerala High Court Directs State To Lay Down Procedure For Hearing In Cases Of Land Acquisition Under Section 15 Of Act

The court maintained that the 2013 Act provides for a “humane, participative, informed, and transparent process" for land acquisition, as the preamble to the new Act suggested. 

A single-judge bench of Justice TR Ravi heard the matter.

The petitioner owned properties, buildings, and businesses about 4 kilometers from Kannur town, abutting the old NH 66 between Manna junction and the National Highway By-pass junction.

The issue arose when the respondent rejected the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 15 of the LARR Act, 2013 challenging the Social Impact Assessment Study and the consequential proceedings.

One of the main contentions raised by the petitioner was that when Section 15 specifically says that a person interested can, within sixty days of the notification under Section 11(1), file objections regarding the findings of the Social Impact Assessment, the said period cannot be reduced in any manner.

The respondents argued that the petitioner's demand to reduce the width of the proposed road cannot be accepted as it will undermine the aim of the project. Additionally, the petitioner's argument that there were local representatives who were not included in the SIA was met with the counter that representatives of the Municipal Corporation participated in the SIA study that was conducted.

One of the questions before the bench was whether a specific procedure is prescribed under the rules for a hearing on the aspects covered by Section 15.

The petitioner submitted that even though Section 15 allows a period of sixty days for preferring an objection against the social impact assessment, Form 7 issued under Rule 18 restricts the period to 15 days. Rule 18 does not speak about the objections regarding the suitability of the land proposed to be acquired, the justification offered for public purposes or the findings of the social impact assessment report, it was argued.

As such, it was argued that there is no specific procedure prescribed in the Rules for a hearing as contemplated in Section 15, and a notice for a hearing does not take into account aspects like affording a hearing on the findings of the Social Impact Assessment Authority.

The court upon hearing these arguments stated that,

“the mere fact that the Rules do not lay down a procedure, the hearing contemplated under Section 15 will not be defeated in any manner. Since it is not proper for this Court to issue any directions to legislate, there will be a direction to the respondents to actively consider the laying down of a procedure for hearing as contemplated in Section 15 of the Act, which inter alia stipulates 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary inspection under Section 11, for submission of objections. The above-said period cannot in any manner be reduced by notices issued for different purposes, granting 15 days' time for submission of objections.”

On the question of the Social Impact Assessment Report, the primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the constitution of the Expert Committee violates Section 7 of the Act.

Section 7 provides for the Expert Committee to include two representatives of Panchayat, Grama Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be.

The argument put forward by the petitioners was that if the acquisition is from areas covered by Panchayats, Grama Sabhas, Municipalities, and Municipal Corporations, Section 7(2)(b) cannot be understood to mean that it is sufficient to have a person from one of the said Local Self Government Institutions alone.

The court went on to say that the words 'as the case may be' in Section 7, along with the several Local Self-Government Institutions, can have reference only to the particular Local Self Government Institutions within whose jurisdiction the land proposed to be acquired is situated.

Court said that such an understanding alone can promote the purpose of the social impact assessment since the Act does not say that there can only be one Expert Group for a whole project.

As such, the court maintained that the expert group that studied the report was not properly constituted.

The final contention concerned the social impact assessment study and the question of whether it was exhaustive. The petitioners submitted that only owners of 406 plots owned by 1932 persons and 432 families were identified in an acquisition that had 1191 plots. Additionally, it was argued that out of the total area to be acquired, 785 plots had not been identified at all.

The court thus agreed with the petitioner's arguments and partly allowed the petitions.

Accordingly, the respondents were directed to constitute an expert group as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates PA Mohammed Shah, Muhammed Janaise V, Renoy Vincent, Aswin Kumar MJ, Helen PA, Arun Roy and Shahir Showkath Ali

Counsel for Respondent: Standing Counsel Manoj Kumar, Senior Government Pleader CS Sheeja, Advocates Muhammed Shafi M, I V Pramod

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

Case Title: C Lajith and Ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.

Case Number: WP (C) No. 29569 of 2021 & 2945 of 2022