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.