JUDGMENT K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of 0.0809 hectare (about. 30 cents) of land in R.S. No. 32/8 in Villiappally. By notification, dated 27th July 1973, published in Kerala Gazette dated 7th August 1973 (Ext. P-2), the said land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Union of India. It was for the purpose of constructing a building for Post Office at Villiappally. The declaration under S.6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was made on 2nd July 1974. The award enquiry was held on 22nd August 1979 and the award was passed on 30th November 1979. Before the award was passed, the petitioner filed the Original Petition before this Court on 2nd July 1979 assailing Ext. P-2 notification promulgated under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The short ground alleged is that there is unreasonable delay in the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act which has resulted in irreparable harm and injury to the petitioner in obtaining proper value for the land acquired. 2. On behalf of the third respondent, a detailed counters-affidavit, dated 2nd September, 1980 has been filed. It is stated that it is due to the exigencies in administration, delay occurred in, proceeding ahead with the acquisition. The learned senior Government Pleader, Mr. N. N. Venkitachalam, referred to the relevant files and submitted that as early as 22nd April 1975 the Revenue Inspector was asked to submit a report which is necessary for the purpose of valuation as enjoined by S.7 of the Act read with R.9 and 10 of the rules. It could not be procured till 20th July 1976. Thereafter, the matter had to be analysed and then finalised. And that accounted for the delay. 3. Petitioner's counsel placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in Moideen v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition 1981 KLT 59 and the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Satish Kapur v. State of Haryana AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 276 and Radhey Sham v. State of Haryana AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 519 FB to substantiate his contention that there is inordinate or inexcusable delay, vitiating the continuance of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. In the above cases, the delay of 9 years, 5 years and 9 years respectively caused in completing the land acquisition proceedings were held to be sufficient to nullify the notifications. It is contended that there is unreasonable delay by the respondents in effectuating the acquisition and that has resulted in irreparable harm and injury to the petitioner. The petitioner was not in any way responsible for the delay caused. Though the delay in this case is only 5 years, there is absolutely no valid reason for the inordinate delay. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the price of the property has swelled by leaps and bounds and the unreasonable delay has visited the petitioner with dire consequences. 4. We heard counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader. We are not satisfied, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent or from the files, that the delay caused in this case, is reasonable or justifiable. There is unreasonable delay in proceeding with the acquisition that has visited the petitioner with dire consequences. He is being deprived of the proper value of the land. We are fortified in the above view, in the light of the principles formulated in the decisions referred to herein above. We hold that on the basis of Ext. P-2 notification dated 27th July 1973, published in Kerala Gazette dated 7th August 1973, the acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded with. We quash the land acquisition proceedings taken in pursuance thereto. 5. Learned Government Pleader also contended that in view of the laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court, it should be held that he is not entitled to any relief. This argument is without substance. We are not convinced that on the facts of this case, the petitioner should be denied the relief on the ground of laches when the State and its officials have not taken prompt steps in effectuating the notification, Ext. P-2. Such an argument is not open to the respondents. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Satish Kapur's case AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 276 may be referred to in this connection We repel this contention. 6. The Original Petition is allowed. We quash Ext. P-2 notification. There shall be no order as to costs.