Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 599 (KER)

PATHROSE v. STATE OF KERALA

1987-11-23

G.VISWANATHA.IYER

body1987
Judgment :- 1. Petitioner's land was notified for acquisition under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961 far the purpose of constructing a building for the local Village Office. A copy of the notification is Ext. P1 dated 4-8-1983. The petitioner filed his objections to the proposed acquisition on 27-8-1983. The declaration under S.6 of the Act has not so far been published. The Original Petition was filed on 8-7-1985 challenging the acquisition proceedings as mala fide. An interim order was passed by this court on 9-7-1985 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the property, but there was no stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notification Ext. P1. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the three year period limited by the first proviso to S.6, for the issue of declaration, expired in August, 1986, the proceedings for acquisition have lapsed. Counsel puts it very simplistically, pointing out that there was no stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notification under S.3(1), and therefore the declaration had to be issued within the period of three years as stipulated by the first proviso to S.6. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, contends that as per Explanation I to S.6(1) of the (Central) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was extended to the State of Kerala by Central Act 68 of 1984, with effect from 26-9-1984 and which governed the proceedings in question, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the preliminary notification is stayed by an order of court is liable to be excluded in the computation of the period of three years. His contention is that taking possession of the land is one of those acts to be undertaken pursuant to the notification and since that had been stayed by this court on 9-7-1985, the period from 9-7-1985 upto this date has got to be excluded in the computation of the period of three years available for issuing the declaration under S.6 3. The action or proceeding contemplated by Explanation I to S.6(1) is an action pursuant to the notification under S.4(1) of the Central Act (corresponding to S.3(1) of the Kerala Act). This notification is followed by a series of acts before it culminates in the next step of a declaration under S.6. The action or proceeding contemplated by Explanation I to S.6(1) is an action pursuant to the notification under S.4(1) of the Central Act (corresponding to S.3(1) of the Kerala Act). This notification is followed by a series of acts before it culminates in the next step of a declaration under S.6. The filing of the objections, survey and demarcation of the land, and the enquiry under S.SA are steps taken pursuant to the notification and leading to the declaration under S.6, When the period with which we are concerned is the period for making the declaration under S.6, the action or proceeding contemplated by Explanation I has to be read and understood as referring to the steps involved between the notification under S.4(1) and the declaration under S.6. Taking of possession is ordinarily a post award operation; and even in the case of acquisitions invoking the emergency provisions, possession can be taken only after publication of the notice under S.9 and after payment to the landowner of 80 percent of the compensation (vide S.17 of the Central Act). Therefore, and in my view, the order of court should be one staying one or other of the steps or proceedings to be taken after the notification under S.4(1) but not comprehending those beyond the issue of the declaration under S.6. Explanation I will apply only in such cases of stay and no others. 4. Only the actual dispossession of the petitioner was stayed by this court. There was no stay of any of the other proceedings. The time fixed for making the declaration under S.6 does not therefore get enlarged as Explanation I has no application. The proceedings in this case have therefore lapsed is the absence of a declaration within the period of three years limited for the purpose. The Original Petition is therefore allowed. It is declared that the proceedings initiated under Ext. P1 have ceased to be in force and have lapsed. Allowed.