Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 28TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 19920 of 2012 (L) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (SOCIAL AND GENERAL SECTOR AUDIT), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.M.RAMANYA GAYATHRI. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.
6. KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KOWADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. WP(C).No. 19920 of 2012 (L) 7. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
8. R. GOPALAN NAIR, CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SERVICES COMPANY LTD., PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R3, R5 & R7 BY SRI.P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, STATE ATTORNEY. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA. R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD. R8 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.SRIKANTH S.NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2012, ALONG WITH W.A. NO. 2747 OF 2009.THE COURT ON 19-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 19920 of 2012 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1- TRUE COPY OF THE EYE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE ABUTTING ROADS DATED NIL. P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15 10.2008. P1(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 18 11.2008. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE DATED 12 01.2009. P2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DATED 24 03.2009. P2(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 28 05.2009. P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C]NO.14138 OF 200.DATED 21 10.2009. P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29 10.2009. P5- TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19 11.2009. P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATED 04 10.2010. P6(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 09 02.2011. P6(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 12 04.2011. P6(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATED 25 07.2011. P6(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL TO THE CHIEF MINISTER, KERALA DATED 23 11.2011. P7- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR THE DISCUSSION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11 08.2011. P7(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AND COVERING LETTER OF THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATED 29 08.2011. (P.T.O.) WP(C).No. 19920 of 2012 (L) P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION DATED 25 04.2012. P8(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16 06.2012. P9- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17 02.2012. P10- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11 11/2009. P10A- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25 11/2009. P11- PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PHYSICAL LIE OF THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY DATED NIL. P11A- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PHYSICAL LIE OF THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY DATED NIL. P11B- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PHYSICAL LIE OF THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY DATED NIL. P11C- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PHYSICAL LIE OF THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY DATED NIL. P12- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23 09/2012. P13- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 05 09/2012. P14- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 20 09/2012. P15- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT DATED 31 01/2012. P15A- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE DATED NIL. P16- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 21 08/2012. P17- TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 24 08/2009. (P.T.O.) WP(C).No. 19920 of 2012 (L) P17A- TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATED 24 08/2009. P18- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY FORWARDING THE REPORT DATED 19 01/2010. P18A- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DRAWN BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. P18B- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P18A, DATED 19 01/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R7A COPY OF THE REPORT NO.K-13/119307/08 DATED 31 01/2012. EXT.R7B COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10 12/2009 ADDRESSED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PWD. EXT.R7C COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21 08/2012 AND IT IS RECEIVED ON 01/09/2012. EXT.R7D COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5356/2012/RD DATED 22 09/2012. EXT.R7E COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23 12/2009. EXT.R7F COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE DATED 22 06/2010. EXT.R7G COPY OF THE LETTER NO.688/H1/10/PWD DATED 03 03/2011. EXT.R8A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF OFFICE COUNCIL MEETING DATED 14 11/2011. EXT.R8B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23 11/2010 IN W.A. NO. 2747/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.19920 of 2012 and W.A.No.2747 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2012 JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE,J The writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.C.No.14138/2009, challenging the dismissal of the writ petition. The facts of the case disclose that the petitioner, an owner of property having an extent of 15 cents of land challenged Ext.P5 notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to acquire 13.20 cents of land for the purpose of having an alternate access to the Accountant General's office. The main contention was that there was no reason to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. He also indicated that the Accountant General's office does not require such an alternate access and if at all an alternate access is required, another area could be acquired.
2. The writ petition came to be dismissed on the objection raised by the Government stating that the Accountant W.P.C.No.19920/2012 2 & W.A.No.2747/2009 General's office requires an alternate access since, on an earlier occasion, about 42 cents of land was acquired from the frontage of Accountant General's office for widening the road and during frequent blockades in front of Secretariat on account of Dharna and other processions by various organisations, an alternate access to another road was necessary. The learned Single Judge found that no interference could be made to the proceedings taken under the Act and therefore the writ petition was dismissed.
3. It is proposing an alternate road without acquiring the property of the petitioner and also impugning the action of the Government in invoking the urgency clause which, according to the appellant, is totally unnecessary the appeal is filed.
4. In the meantime, it seems that the Government had decided not to proceed with the said acquisition and had passed Ext.P9 proceedings in WPC No.19920/2012, whereby a decision was taken to withdraw the above notification for acquiring the land for the proposed additional path to the Accountant General's office. W.P.C.No.19920/2012 3 & W.A.No.2747/2009 5. The Principal Accountant General, therefore, filed W.P.C.No.19920/2012 challenging the aforesaid action to de- notify the acquisition proceedings. According to him, the said action of the Government is totally illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. It is contended that in the year 2008, as requested by the Government of Kerala, Comptroller and Auditor General had surrendered 48.83 cents of land belonging to it for the purpose of widening M.G.Road from the western side of the C&AG's office at Thiruvananthapuram. Originally there were three gates, two facing M.G.Road and one facing Cantonment road. When the road was widened, it was restricted only to two gates in the new compound block of which one gate opens to the M.G.Road and the other to the Cantonment road. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of surrendering of the property for widening M.G.Road, Government had agreed to acquire certain property on the eastern side of the petitioner's property in order to have an alternate access to the Punnen road on the eastern side of the office compound. It was so agreed since M.G.Road is always a busy road with heavy traffic and due to processions, Dharna and other obstructions in front of the W.P.C.No.19920/2012 4 & W.A.No.2747/2009 Secretariat which is adjacent to the Accountant General's office and that it is very difficult for the persons who come to the office to reach the office premises as there will be closure of M.G.Road which causes inconvenience to the public visiting the office.
6. According to the petitioner, it was in the said background that Government had issued Section 4(1) notification on 24/03/2009 in terms of Government Order dated 18/11/2008 proposing to acquire 1 are in re-survey No.2819/6, 2.27 ares in re-survey No.2813/9, 0.95 ares in re-survey No.2813/8 and 0.77 ares in re-survey No.2816/3. It is stated that the 8th respondent herein who is the appellant in W.A.No.2747/2009 had filed W.P.C.No.14138/2009 challenging the acquisition proceedings which was dismissed on 21/10/2009 against which appeal has been filed as W.A.No.2747/2009. It is further stated that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award dated 09/11/2009, Ext.P5 and according to the petitioner, the award amount was deposited in court and two claimants had already received the amount. After the award was passed, the petitioner has taken possession of the acquired land. Ext.P6 series are relied upon to show that possession had been taken by the petitioner. W.P.C.No.19920/2012 5 & W.A.No.2747/2009 7. It is alleged that on account of political pressure at the instance of the 8th respondent, an attempt has been made to stall the land acquisition proceedings; but in a meeting held on 16/08/2011, it was indicated that it was not feasible to exclude the acquired land which was taken to provide access to the petitioner's compound from Punnen road. But, still nothing happened in the matter despite the fact that the petitioner was requesting Government authorities to complete the acquisition proceedings. Further enquiries revealed that the District Collector by Ext.P9 had reported that the land acquisition is not to be proceeded with and that steps are to be taken to withdraw the notification. It is at this stage that this writ petition is filed.
8. According to the writ petitioner, Ext.P9 came to be passed on account of political pressure and at the instance of the 8th respondent and therefore, to that extent, Ext.P9 is vitiated by mala fides. It is their contention that there was a promise by the Government to provide an additional access to Accountant General's office and certain portion of the land has already been acquired and is in the possession of the petitioner. The present attempt of de-notifying the said land is only depriving the W.P.C.No.19920/2012 6 & W.A.No.2747/2009 petitioner of an opportunity to have access to Punnen road which was found to be necessary by the Government at the initial stage itself. In the said premise, it was contended that Ext.P9 is liable to be set aside and necessary directions are to be given to the official respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings.
9. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia indicating that though notification had been issued, no steps were taken for completing the acquisition and possession was never taken by the Requisitioning authority until such date and therefore it was open for the Government to withdraw the acquisition proceedings at any stage under Section 48 of the Act. According to the respondent, an extent of 41.83 cents of land, surrendered by the C&AG on the request of Government of Kerala for widening the M.G.Road is the property of Government of Kerala and does not belong to C&AG. It is stated that the property was originally occupied by Government Law College of Thiruvananthapuram which was later shifted and the said area was given to house the building of C&AG. Therefore, according to them it is not correct to say that C&AG had surrendered their land free of cost to the Government. W.P.C.No.19920/2012 7 & W.A.No.2747/2009 10. It is further contended that the reduction of gates was not on account of widening of road. It is only on account of practical reasons, that they could maintain only two gates, the third gate was closed. It is also contended that the office of the petitioner is situated adjacent to Cantonment police station and Secretariat complex and always there will be sufficient police force in and around that area. Therefore, there will be no obstruction to the persons visiting the Accountant General's office as it is well protected and in fact processions do sometimes proceed through Punnen road also. Normally, police keep proper vigil and ensures that the procession does not cause any hindrance to the working of the nearby offices. It is also stated that during the working hours, the gates remain closed and by Ext.R8(a), it is seen that they decided to reduce number of gates for the office complex in its meeting held on 14/11/2011. The respondent also denied the fact that alternate additional access to Punnen road was made for security reasons. It is further indicated that there was a request for acquiring the land by the Secretary, TRIDA for the purpose of making additional pathway to the writ petitioner. Government gave administrative sanction W.P.C.No.19920/2012 8 & W.A.No.2747/2009 on 18/11/2008 to initiate acquisition proceedings by invoking urgency clause. Proceedings were taken to acquire the land and preliminary notification was published on 24/3/2009 and Section 6 declaration was published on 28/05/2009. Notice under Section 15(3) was issued to all the parties and the land in L.A.C.No.271/09 that is 1 are in survey No.2819/2 and 2819/4 of Vanchiyoor village and 2.27 ares in survey No.2813/9 L.A.C.No.272/09 was taken possession and handed over to the 4th respondent on 28/05/2009. However, the land having an extent of 1.72 ares in survey No.2813/8 and 2816/3, 2816/1-1 was not taken possession because of the interim order passed in W.A.No.2747/2009. It is further stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that though proceedings were taken for acquiring the land, later on when a detailed verification was made by the 7th respondent it was seen that providing the luxury of additional entrance for the petitioner when already two wide gates are in existence towards the western M.G.Road and South Cantonment road provides easy and direct access to the said roads, additional access was not required. W.P.C.No.19920/2012 9 & W.A.No.2747/2009 11. These matters were reported by the Requisitioning authority to the Government as per report not K-13/119307/08 dated 31/1/2012 produced as Ext.R7(a). It is also indicated that when the relevant records were scrutinized, it was found that the requisitioning authority did not get sufficient time to verify the relevance of such an additional pathway and everything had been done in a haste and a bonafide oversight had occurred in the matter. Hence steps were taken for de-notifying the acquisition proceedings. The respondent also relied upon the fact that the Government has seriously re-considered the issue as evident from the communication dated 10/12/2009 send by the 7th respondent to Principal Secretary, Public Works Department produced as Ext.R7(b). It was also indicated that though the PWD Minister had convened a conference on 16/08/2011, it was decided that a final decision will be taken by the Chief Minister. In the meantime, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Government as Ext.R7(c). The Government had discussed the matter in detail in a Cabinet meeting held on 22/09/2012 and had taken a decision and finally confirmed the decision to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. It is in the light of the W.P.C.No.19920/2012 10 & W.A.No.2747/2009 aforesaid facts, it is contended by the 7th respondent, that the proceedings for acquisition was dropped.
12. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land. 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining the reasons for dropping the proceedings of acquisition. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit reiterating their contentions and relying upon Exts.P10 to P16 documents and indicating that certain portion of the land had already been acquired and given which becomes a waste if the other land belonging to the 8th respondent is not acquired.
13. The short question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the action taken by the Government to withdraw a notification issued for acquisition of land can be challenged by the authority for whom the notification was issued.
14. It is seen from the facts pleaded by the parties that a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act invoking urgency clause for the purpose of acquiring land for the petitioner, to use the said land as an alternate access to Punnen Road on the east of the petitioner's present building. It is also W.P.C.No.19920/2012 11 & W.A.No.2747/2009 not in dispute that Section 6 declaration was also published and steps were taken for passing an award and taking possession of the land. In fact, with reference to certain item of property covered by the very same notification, the same was already acquired and the awardees were given compensation. It is at that stage that the District Collector had given an opinion that a rethinking into the acquisition particulars was necessary especially when there was a stay granted by this Court in W.A.No.2747 of 2009. When the matter was considered, it is found that the alternate access from the Accountant General's office to Punnen Road was a luxury and it is not required and is not a necessity as such in view of the fact that it has two accesses; one to the M.G.Road and other to the Cantonment road.
15. The point to be determined is that once the Government takes a decision to withdraw from the notification even after publication of Section 6 declaration, can it be challenged by a requisitioning authority. Land is acquired based on the provisions of the Act for public purpose or for the purpose of a company. When the land is acquired for a public purpose, W.P.C.No.19920/2012 12 & W.A.No.2747/2009 the first and foremost requirement is to verify whether it amounts to a public purpose or not. When Section 4(1) notification is published, it only amounts to a proposal. But, in the light of the invocation of urgency clause the Government proceeded to publish Section 6 declaration also within time. Apparently, there had been an issue as to whether there was a public purpose involved or not. In fact, when Section 6 declaration is published the Government confirms the public purpose. Once such a confirmation is made, can it be revoked is the question. Section 48 reads as under: "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.- (1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings W.P.C.No.19920/2012 13 & W.A.No.2747/2009 thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section." 16. Section 48 can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings prior to taking possession. Admittedly, the property of the appellant in W.A.No.2747/2009 has not been taken possession. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Government to invoke Section 48(1) of the Act. Then the only question is whether there is any mala fides in issuing Ext.P9.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the affidavits filed by the official respondents in W.P.C.No.14138/2009 wherein they have reiterated the fact that the acquisition was for a public purpose and that it is urgently required. It is the argument that a contrary stand has now been taken by the Government in Ext.P9. But, having gone through the counter affidavit filed in this case, the District Collector had W.P.C.No.19920/2012 14 & W.A.No.2747/2009 explained in detail the reasons for taking a different stand. According to the District Collector, a hasty decision was taken for acquiring the land for the purpose of alternate access to Punnen Road without a proper study and only subsequently when it was verified, especially when a stay was granted by this court, that the petitioner's requirement for an additional access was considered in detail and it was found that it was not necessary. Though it is contended that Ext.P9 had been issued on account of the mala fides especially political pressure exercised by the 8th respondent, there is no material to justify the same. Every land owner may try to avoid acquisition of his land; but that does not mean that the Government takes decisions based on the said request.
18. The question is whether this particular piece of land is absolutely necessary for the petitioner. It is not a case of necessity that is projected. They already have two gates opening to two roads. They want an entry to the third road through another gate on the eastern side. Thus it cannot be treated as an absolute necessity for the Accountant General's office to have the access. The access is there; but the 3rd access will be more W.P.C.No.19920/2012 15 & W.A.No.2747/2009 convenient to them, since, according to them, several persons do come to Accountant General's office on a day to day basis and in the event of any obstruction in the front of Secretariat where the other gates are situated, this could give rise to an easy access to the persons coming to Accountant General's office. This apprehension might be correct, but the question would be whether the petitioner can claim the acquisition of property as of right, when they have other access. The facts involved in the case would not show that it is an absolute necessity for the Accountant General's office to have a third access. It is only when there are obstructions in front of the other two gates that they require this pathway and entry becomes a necessity. Though obstructions might be there, it is not a daily affair and that by itself cannot be treated as an absolute necessity for the third passage though it might be convenient for them. Therefore, we do not think that there is any mala fides on the part of the Government in coming to a conclusion that the third pathway or entry is not a necessity for the petitioner's office.
19. In regard to the contentions relating to the affidavits filed on earlier occasions, that was the stand of the Government W.P.C.No.19920/2012 16 & W.A.No.2747/2009 at that point of time and by taking a changed stand now, we cannot attribute mala fides. There is no material to show that there is any mala fides in the action of the Government and that is why we have verified whether the said third entry to the eastern Punnen road is a necessity or not. In the absence of such a road becoming a necessity for the Accountant General's office to function, we are of the view that we cannot interfere with an order passed by the Government to withdraw the notification by exercising the power under Section 48(1) of the Act.
20. In the result, the above cases are disposed as follows: i) W.A.No.2747/2009 has become infructuous on account of the fact that the Government has passed Ext.P9 order which is produced in W.P.C.No.19920/2012 and hence dismissed as infructuous. ii) W.P.C.No.19920/2012 is dismissed. (sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.19920/2012 17 & W.A.No.2747/2009 W.P.C.No.19920/2012 18 & W.A.No.2747/2009 W.P.C.No.19920/2012 19 & W.A.No.2747/2009