IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 171 of 2008()
1. R.S.MOIDEEN, S/O.SAITHALIKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE
4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
6. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD.
7. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) AND LAND
8. ELAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :29/01/2008
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WRIT APPEAL Nos.171 & 174 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008.
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, CJ,
Petitioners claim that they are the owners of land, which is notified
for the acquisition purpose by the State Government by invoking their powers
under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of
construction of an autorickshaw stand. The main contention of the petitioners
before the court is that the need projected in the notification is not a public
purpose and Section 6(1) declarations have been issued beyond the time
prescribed under the Act. The learned SingleJudge, after carefully going through
the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Act and
the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act has come to the conclusion
that the said notifications are issued for the purpose of construction of a comfort
station and autorickshaw stand and the same is a public purpose. We do not think
that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is either arbitrary or erroneous.
Therefore, the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant
has no merit.
2. In so far as the second contention he has canvassed, the learned
Single Judge relying upon the counter affidavit filed by respondents 7 and 8 in the
writ petition has come to the conclusion that Section 4(1) notification had been
published in the news papers on 19.1.2006 and also on 21.1.2006 and the same
was published in the locality on 13.3.2006. If the last date of publication is taken
into consideration, then Section 6(1) declaration made on 7.3.2007 is within the
time prescribed under the Act.
W.A. Nos. 171 & 174/2008. 2
3. The petitioners had not disputed the dates mentioned by respondents
7 and 8 in the counter affidavit. In view of that, it can be safely said that Section 4(1)
notification was issued in the locality only on 13.3.2006 and if that date is kept in view
and the date of Section 6(1) declaration is taken as 7.3.2007, then Section 6(1)
declaration is made within the time prescribed under the Act. Therefore, we do not find
any merit in the second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
sb.