IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 171 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12526/2007 Dated 06/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETTIONER: ------------------------------------ R.S.MOIDEEN, S/O.SAITHALIKUTTY, RAYAM MARAKKAR HOUSE, ENAMAKKAL, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RESIYA MOIDEEN, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.R.S.MOIDEEN, R.S.GARDENS, ENAMAKKAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.K.S.CHANDRIKA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BYTHE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (M) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD. 7. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR. 8. ELAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELAVALLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, ALONG WITH WA NO. 174 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.