IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24120 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER -------------- S. RUBEENA, VRINDHAVAN, MANGALAPURAM, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS ------------------- 1.THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4.THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), SREEPANDARAVAKA LANDS NO.III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R5.THE TECHNOPARK, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2008 IN THE WRIT PETITION. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.D.ANILKUMAR ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, S.C, TECHNOPARK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24120 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, whose properties have been notified for acquisition for the purpose of additional 5th respondent, challenges the declaration under Section 6 already issued in this case on the ground of limitation. She also prays that a portion of her properties notified for acquisition and covered by the declaration be excluded from acquisition since several other items of neighbouring properties have been excluded taking into account the special facts which exists in those cases. 2. As for the argument that the declaration under Section 6 is bad since the same has been issued beyond the statutory period of one year limitation. I find it difficult to accept that argument. The learned Government Pleader has placed before me a copy of the affixure notice regarding the affixure of the notification under Section 4(1) in the locality. It is seen that the affixure in the locality was made on 5.12.2006. While considering whether a notification is barred by limitation, the crucial date is the last date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) even if it is in the locality. Since it is seen that the local publication of the substance of the notification is W.P.C.No.24120/08 - 2 - made only on 5.12.2006, it will have to be found that the declaration under Section 6(1) has been promulgated in this case within the statutory prescribed period of limitation. 3. Coming to the petitioner's request for exclusion of a portion of her property before me, Ext.P5 report submitted by the Special Tahildar (LA) before the District Collector on the basis of an enquiry conducted pursuant to Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner before the Minister and the counter affidavit submitted by the Techno Park contains conflicting version regarding the identity of the properties which are proposed to be acquired. According to Ext.P5, it is only the properties lying on the eastern side of the petitioner's property which are proposed to be acquired. Under Ext.P5, the Tahsildar has recommended that the acquisition of the petitioner's property can be confined to a width of 10 metres with road frontage of Mangalam to Talikonnam road. But the requisition authority in their counter affidavit has contended that the properties on the northern, eastern and southern sides of the petitioner's property are also earmarked for acquisition. Ext.R5(1) is the relevant extract of the techonocity map showing the plots of land belonging to the petitioner and the plots on the north, east and south side is also W.P.C.No.24120/08 - 3 - produced. In Ext.R5(1) the petitioner's property is the property in Survey No.514/1 which is marked with stripes. Going by Ext.R5(1), the properties on the northern side, properties in Survey No.508/18, on the eastern side, properties in Survey No.508/20/21 and the properties in Survey No.514/9 on the southern side are also earmarked for acquisition. The attention of the learned counsel for the requisition authority was drawn to the conflicting versions given before this court by the acquiring authority and the requisitioning authority. Learned counsel would then submit that the requisition authority has no objection in the Land Acquisition Officer taking a decision on Ext.P4 which is now forwarded to him, after hearing both sides taking into account Ext.P5 as well as Ext.R5(1). Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that even as the notification under Section 6 is upheld, the Land Acquisition Officer can be directed to take a decision on Ext.P4 in the context that the petitioner's property actually required by the requisition authority for their purpose in the light of Exts.P5 and R5(1). Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of issuing the following directions: The challenge against Ext.P3 is repelled. The 4th respondent is directed to hear the petitioner as well as additional 5th respondent W.P.C.No.24120/08 - 4 - upon Ext.P4 representation and take a decision on the same taking into account his own Ext.P5 and Ext.R5(1) submitted before this court by the additional 5th respondent. Needful in compliance with the above directions should be done by the 4th respondent at the earliest and at any rate within five weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE