IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 29625 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, VALIYAMURATHANKAL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KUMBUKKAL KUTTIYAMMA @ MERRY W/O.LATE K.C.SEBASTIAN, AGED 61 YEARS, KUMBUKKAL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. SHEELA JOY, W/O.JOY JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, VALIYAMURATHANKAL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. E.L.THOMAS, S/O.LUKA, AGED 56 YEARS, ELAVUNKAL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O. TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR. 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC.NO.29625/08 4. TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30137 OF 2008 & 32881/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).NOs.29625, 30137 & 32881 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT The only issue which arises in these cases is whether the proceedings for land acquisition has become time barred. The ground which is prominently raised by the petitioners is that in as much as the declaration under Section 6 has not been promulgated within the stipulated time provided under Section 6, the proceedings have become lapsed. According to the petitioners, it is the last date of the notification under Section 4(1) either in the gazette or in the local newspaper which is to be taken into account for determining the question of limitation. The petitioners rely on the judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. Choyikutty (2003(1)KLT 494) . It is brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader as well as by Sri.P.V.Surendranath, standing counsel for the requisitioning authority that the law as settled by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, W.P.(c).NOs.29625, 30137 & 32881 OF 2008 2 Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob, s/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (dead) by L.Rs and others ( AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1308) and in Bihar State Housing Board v. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3817) is to the effect that, as is provided under Section 4(1) the last date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) for the purpose of determining whether the declaration is time barred is the last of the dates of such publication ( publication in the gazette or in the newspaper) and the giving of such public notice ( the publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) ) in the locality. It is obvious that if the date of giving of public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality is taken into account, the present proceedings are not time barred. Writ petitions will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. W.P.(c).NOs.29625, 30137 & 32881 OF 2008 3