IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6521 of 2005(B)
1. T.R.RADHAMMA, 'SAJI BHAVAN',
... Petitioner
2. SHYLAJAKUMARI D/O RADHAMMA,
3. SINDU D/O. RADHAMMA ' SAJI BHAVAN',
4. SAJIKUMAR S/O. BHUVANEDRA PANICER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
3. NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.6521 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 20th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The proceedings for acquisition of the properties belonging to
the petitioners are sought to be quashed on the ground that
declaration under Section 6 has been issued after the expiry of more
than one year of the date of publication of the notification under
Section 4(1). It is the first proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act which is relevant and the same is quoted below:
“Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land
covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1),-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967) but before
the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
(68 of 1984) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the
date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year
from the date of the publication of the notification.”
Counter affidavits have been filed both by the Land Acquisition Officer
as well as on behalf of the requisitioning authority. A perusal of the
W.P.C.No.6521/05 – 2 –
counter affidavits will show that the notification under Section 4(1)
was published in the gazette on 10.6.2002, in the local dailies on
11.6.2002 and 13.6.2002 and on the property on 11.7.2002. Thus
the last date of publication of Section 4(1) notification is 11.7.2002.
The counter affidavits further reveal that the declaration under
Section 6 was published in the Kerala Government Gazette on
7.7.2003 followed by publications in local dailies on 23.7.2003 and at
the site on 25.7.2003. Since declaration has been made obviously at
least on 7.7.2003 which is well within the period of one year from
11.7.2002, it can be easily found that the ground raised in the Writ
Petition cannot succeed. The Writ Petition fails and the same will
stand dismissed.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE