IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24120 of 2008(U)
1. S. RUBEENA, VRINDHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, TECHNOPARK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :20/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.24120 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 20th October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, whose properties have been notified for
acquisition for the purpose of additional 5th respondent, challenges
the declaration under Section 6 already issued in this case on the
ground of limitation. She also prays that a portion of her properties
notified for acquisition and covered by the declaration be excluded
from acquisition since several other items of neighbouring properties
have been excluded taking into account the special facts which exists
in those cases.
2. As for the argument that the declaration under Section 6 is
bad since the same has been issued beyond the statutory period of
one year limitation. I find it difficult to accept that argument. The
learned Government Pleader has placed before me a copy of the
affixure notice regarding the affixure of the notification under Section
4(1) in the locality. It is seen that the affixure in the locality was
made on 5.12.2006. While considering whether a notification is
barred by limitation, the crucial date is the last date of publication of
the notification under Section 4(1) even if it is in the locality. Since it
is seen that the local publication of the substance of the notification is
W.P.C.No.24120/08 – 2 –
made only on 5.12.2006, it will have to be found that the declaration
under Section 6(1) has been promulgated in this case within the
statutory prescribed period of limitation.
3. Coming to the petitioner’s request for exclusion of a portion
of her property before me, Ext.P5 report submitted by the Special
Tahildar (LA) before the District Collector on the basis of an enquiry
conducted pursuant to Ext.P4 representation submitted by the
petitioner before the Minister and the counter affidavit submitted by
the Techno Park contains conflicting version regarding the identity of
the properties which are proposed to be acquired. According to
Ext.P5, it is only the properties lying on the eastern side of the
petitioner’s property which are proposed to be acquired. Under
Ext.P5, the Tahsildar has recommended that the acquisition of the
petitioner’s property can be confined to a width of 10 metres with
road frontage of Mangalam to Talikonnam road. But the requisition
authority in their counter affidavit has contended that the properties
on the northern, eastern and southern sides of the petitioner’s
property are also earmarked for acquisition. Ext.R5(1) is the relevant
extract of the techonocity map showing the plots of land belonging to
the petitioner and the plots on the north, east and south side is also
W.P.C.No.24120/08 – 3 –
produced. In Ext.R5(1) the petitioner’s property is the property in
Survey No.514/1 which is marked with stripes. Going by Ext.R5(1),
the properties on the northern side, properties in Survey No.508/18,
on the eastern side, properties in Survey No.508/20/21 and the
properties in Survey No.514/9 on the southern side are also
earmarked for acquisition. The attention of the learned counsel for
the requisition authority was drawn to the conflicting versions given
before this court by the acquiring authority and the requisitioning
authority. Learned counsel would then submit that the requisition
authority has no objection in the Land Acquisition Officer taking a
decision on Ext.P4 which is now forwarded to him, after hearing both
sides taking into account Ext.P5 as well as Ext.R5(1). Under the
above circumstances, I am of the view that even as the notification
under Section 6 is upheld, the Land Acquisition Officer can be directed
to take a decision on Ext.P4 in the context that the petitioner’s
property actually required by the requisition authority for their
purpose in the light of Exts.P5 and R5(1). Accordingly, the Writ
Petition is disposed of issuing the following directions:
The challenge against Ext.P3 is repelled. The 4th respondent is
directed to hear the petitioner as well as additional 5th respondent
W.P.C.No.24120/08 – 4 –
upon Ext.P4 representation and take a decision on the same taking
into account his own Ext.P5 and Ext.R5(1) submitted before this court
by the additional 5th respondent. Needful in compliance with the
above directions should be done by the 4th respondent at the earliest
and at any rate within five weeks of receiving copy of this judgment.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE