IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7320 of 2011(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. MARY, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, R/A.CHENGINIMATTOM, CHALAKKUDY, TRICHUR DISTRICT REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.CHERIAN, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.CHERIAN, R/A.PALATHARA HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 2. VALSA VARGHSE, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.VARGHESE,R/A.KALOOKARAN HOUSE ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.CHERIAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYAN,R/A.PALATHARA HOUSE, ERAMALOOR,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. OMANA CHARLS AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.CHARLS, R/A.MANJAALI HOUSE, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.CHERIAN,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, R/A.AT PALATHARA HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 4. SHOBI CHERIAN, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.P.C.CHERIAN,R/A.PALATHARA HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI,CHERIYAN AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.CHERIAN, R/A.PALATHARA HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. MOLY STEPHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.STEEPHAN RESIDING AT VALLACHIRAKKARAN HOUSE, CHERPU,THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.CHERIAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, RESIDING AT PALATHARA HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.P.N.SANTHAKUMARI SRI.E.G.GORDEN SRI.N.SAJAN ANTONY SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON tss W.P.(C) NO.7320/2011 RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECOTR, THRISSUR DIST-680001 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION FOR TRISSUR CORPORATION,TRISSUR-680001 3. THE SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY CHALAKKUDY,TRISSUR DIST-680307 4. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE MINISTRY OF LAND AND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1,2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7320/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE WILL DTD. 4.6.99. P2:- COPY OF THE SE. 4(1) NOTIFICATIN OF L.A.ACT DTD. 27.11.2007. P3:- COPY OF THE SE.6 DECLARATION OF L.A.ACT DTD. 20.2.09. P4:- COPY OF THE SE. 9(3) NOTICE UNDER THE L.A.ACT DTD. 15.12.10. P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P4 NOTICE DTD 15.2.11. P6:- COPY OF THE RULE 15(3) OF DELIVERY NOTICE DTD. 16.2.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE BUILDIGN PERMIT DTD.9.4.07. ANNEXURE R2(a):- COPY OF THE LAST PUBLICATION OF 4(b) NOTICE IN THE LOCALITY ON 23.2.08. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7320 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P3 notifications, Exts.P4, P6 and P7 notices and for a declaration that Exts.P4, P6 and P7 notices are abuse of process of law and liable to be set aside. 2. The matter relates to the acquisition of the property of the petitioners. Petitioners contend that the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents pursuant to Exts.P2 & P3 notifications lapsed by Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act. The contentions raised is that there was no declaration under section 6 of the Act within a period of one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification and therefore, proceedings for acquisition have lapsed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent it is stated that the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the extra ordinary gazette on 27.11.2007, publication in two daily news papers were made on 6.12.2007 and notices under Section 4 (b) was served to all persons interested and published in the notices of the village office, Taluk Office and in the locality on 23.2.2008. Copy of the last publication of notice on 23.2.2008 is marked as Ext.R2(a). It is also pointed out that the W.P.(C) No.7320/2011 2 declaration was published within one year from the date of last publication of Section 4(1) notification. The 2nd respondent submits that declaration under section 6 of the Act was approved by the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram on 18.2.2009 vide proceedings No. LR(C) 3.2311/2009 and was published in the Kerala extra ordinary gazette on 20.2.2009. Therefore, it is submitted that section 6 declaration was published within the time frame as contemplated by the Act and Rules. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is also pointed out that Rule 9(3) notices were served to all parties concerned by registered post. The enquiry under section 9 of Land Acquisition Act was conducted on 5.1.2011. It is stated that in response to Rule 9(3) Notices an Advocate represented the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer and that the period of 15 days time is granted for production of documents. But neither the counsel nor the parties have appeared again nor produced any documentary evidence. It is further stated that Land Acquisition Officer passed the award No. 1/2011 dated 10.2.2011. Thereafter, the notice in form No. 12 dated 16.2.2011 under Rule 15(2) were served to all interested parties by registered post with acknowledgment. Subsequently, the Special Revenue Inspector attached to the office of Special Tahsildar took possession of the property in survey No. 451/4B of East Chalakudy Village and handed over to Requisition Authority namely, the Secretary, Chalakudy Municipality on 9.3.2011. 5. The writ petition is filed on 7.3.2011 challenging Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration. Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 W.P.(C) No.7320/2011 3 declaration was during December 2007 and the last publication was on 23.2.2008. Section 6 declaration was on 20.2.2009. Since the writ petition was filed more than two yeas after declaration under section 6 of the Act, this Court finds that there is justification for the petitioners to challenge the land acquisition proceedings at a belated stage. In fact long before the filing of the writ petition, petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to Rule 9(3) notices and Section 9 enquiry was conducted during January 2011. Petitioners through their counsel also participated in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, there is no justification for the petitioners to approach this Court challenging Section 6 declaration at this belated stage. Moreover, on the basis of the materials produced, this Court find that Section 6 declaration was published within the statutory period and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al