IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3877 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K. ASHARAF S/O ABOO, 48 YEARS, DRIVER, RESIDING AT THAIKANDI HOUSE, NEW MAHE (P.O.PERINGADI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SEPCITAL TAHSILDAR, (L.A.) THALASSERY, KANNUR. 4. NEW MAHE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.PERINGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.K. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3877 OF 2010 (H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the land acquisition proceedings, for acquiring 5 cents of land belonging to the petitioner for the construction of a park. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that section 6(1) declaration was published more than a year after the publication of Section 4(1) notification and therefore the acquisition proceedings have elapsed. 2. In so far as this contention is raised, referring to Annexure- 2 produced along with the statement filed by the respondent, learned Government Pleader submits that last date of publication of the Section 4(a) notification was 3.4.2008 and that notice under Rule 7(2) in Form 4(b) was published in the village office on 23.5.2008 and therefore the contention is without substance. From the aforesaid dates furnished through the statement, the case pleaded by the petitioner that Section 6 declaration was after 1 year of Section 4(1) notification can be seem to be wrong. WPC.No. 3877/2010 :2 : 3. The second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Section 17(4) has been invoked and the enquiry under Section 5(A) is dispensed with without any application of mind and without passing any order under Section 17(4). A reading of the writ petition shows that such a contention is not raised in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he came to know of the fact that Section 17(4) has been invoked only from the statement filed by the respondents. In any case that cannot be an explanation and even if it is so, the pleadings should have been amended which has not been done. That apart, notice in form 4(b) is issued only in a case where Section 17(4) is invoked. In this case, despite all this, there is no averment in the writ Petition challenging invocation of the power under Section 17(4) and therefore the arguments now raised in the course of the submissions cannot be entertained. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed, (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 3877/2010 :3 :