IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2403 of 2008() --------------------- {IN WPC.32881/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- BABY NISHA, 'NISHA NIVAS', PALAKKULANGARA, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) THALASSERY, KANNUR (DT). 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DIST, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR. 4. THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALIPARAMBA, THALIPARAMBA (PO), KANNUR (DT). BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2403 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT GIRI, J. The writ petitioner, who claims to be the owner of 19 cents of land in R.S.No.51/6 of the Thrichambaram Desom of Thaliparamba Amsom in Kannur District; challenged the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short “the Act”}, in respect of different extents of property including that which belonged to the writ petitioner, essentially on the ground that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not published within one year from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and therefore, time barred. Learned single Judge found that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.6.2008, that the publication of the 4(1) notification in the locality was on 25.6.2007, that W.A.No.2403 of 2008 :: 2 :: the latter was the last among the publications as contemplated by law and since it was published within one year from 25.6.2007, the same must be held to be within the time prescribed. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the requisitioning authority, a composite notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act, was issued for a public purpose viz., for the construction-Auto-Taxi- Lorry parking place and vegetable market for Thaliparamba Municipality in the Kerala Gazette dated 20.4.2007, and in two dailies; in Mathrbhumi and Desabhimani on 21.4.2007. The case of the Land Acquisition Authority is that the substance of the notification was published in the notice board of the Village Office and at site on 25.6.2007 and copy of the substance of the notification was, as a matter of fact, produced before the learned single Judge by the W.A.No.2403 of 2008 :: 3 :: requisitioning authority. Section 6 declaration came to be published in the gazette on 23.6.2008. There is no dispute regarding the said fact. On this basis, learned single Judge proceeded to hold, following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob, S/o.Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by L.Rs and others {AIR 2003 SC 1308} and in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and others {AIR 2003 SC 3817} that the last date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) in the locality should be taken into account for reckoning the period of one year prescribed under law, for issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. On this basis, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if it is assumed that the substance of the notification was published at site on 25.6.2007 the Land W.A.No.2403 of 2008 :: 4 :: Acquisition Rules contemplate publication not only in the Village office and site, which was done in the case, but in two other places also. This has not been done, and therefore, there cannot be due publication of Section 4(1) notification in terms of the rules as such, it is contended. 4. We find no force in this submission. There is no serious dispute that the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 25.6.2007. The notification under Section 4(1) was published in the gazette as also in two Malayalam Dailies. Assuming that there is a technical infirmity in the non-publication of the gist of the notification in two other places in the locality, it does make the declaration under Section 6 of the Act invalid on the ground that the declaration was beyond the prescribed period. Significantly, there is no challenge to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the only ground of challenge is that declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be published beyond the period of one W.A.No.2403 of 2008 :: 5 :: year from the last among the dates of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4). There is no provision in the Act which renders invalid a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, though it has been published in the gazette as also in two dailies and also at site was not published in the notice board, of the Revenue Divisional Office or District Collector's office, as the case may be. The contention taken up in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that what is placed on record by the respondents as having been published in the locality is not in conformity with Rule 7(2) Land Acquisition Rules and therefore, there cannot be adequate publication of the notification. We do not find any merit in this contention. What is contemplated in the Act is the publication of the W.A.No.2403 of 2008 :: 6 :: substance of the notification in the locality, in contra distinction to the publication of the notification in the gazette as also in the news papers. It is fairly clear from the notice dated 31.5.2007, which was published at site on 23.6.2008 that the same amounts to substance of the notification. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge