Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 424 (KER)

Noorjahan Podikannu v. State of Kerala

1997-11-05

JACOB BENJAMIN KOSHY

body1997
JUDGMENT J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioner owns 70.81 square metres of property situated in Resurvey No. 183/149 of Kollam East Village. A part of the above mentioned property, i. e. about 27 square-metres had been notified by the State Government for acquisition for public purpose as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. After considering the objections declaration was published under S.6(2) of the Act on 23-6-1995 in the official gazette and on 15-7-1995 in the Deshabhimani Daily. Ext. P1 is copy of the declaration published in Deshabhimani Daily. It is alleged by the petitioner that petitioner's that part of the property is very valuable and no award was passed within the time required under S.11A of the Act. After expiry of the time on 12-9-1997 award was passed and petitioner was issued notice of award, Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, the above award was passed after the statutory time limit prescribed under S.11A and therefore, the entire proceedings have lapsed. Petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. It is true that if there is delay of more than two years from the last date of publication of the declaration under S.6 and passing of the award the proceedings will lapse, as held by the Supreme ourt in Abdul Majeed Sahib and another v. District Collector and others ( 1997 (1) SCC 297 ) and in L. N. Venkatesan v. State of T. N. and others ( 1997 (5) SCC 309 ). 2. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that award was passed in time. The last declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published at the site on 19-9-1995 and award was passed on 12-9-1997 which is well within the time limit prescribed under S.11A of the Act. S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: "11A. 2. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that award was passed in time. The last declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published at the site on 19-9-1995 and award was passed on 12-9-1997 which is well within the time limit prescribed under S.11A of the Act. S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: "11A. Period within which an award shall be made:-- The Collector shall make an award under S.11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement." The time gap of two years should be counted from the last date of publication. This was clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in M. Syed Mohammed Shafi and others v. State and others ( 1996 (1) KLJ 202 ) following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt v. State of Gujarat and others ( AIR 1995 SC 1549 ). Since the last date of publication and passing of the award are within the two years limitation, it is contended by learned Government Pleader that award was passed in time. 3. Ext.R3(a) was produced to show that declaration was published in the Gazette on 23-6-1995 and local authorities were directed to publish the declaration in the notice board and to return the published copy. Ext. R3(b) shows that it was published on 19-9-1995. The Chairman has signed the same on 19-9-1995. The Supreme Court in Ajay Krishnan Shinghal v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 2677 ) held that endorsement by peon that he affixed copy of the notification at conspicuous place in the locality is enough and there is a presumption under S.114(e) of the Evidence Act. 4. From the records produced I am satisfied that the last date of publication in the locality was on 19-9-1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is long delay of the local publication as there was about three months delay in the gazette publication as well as local publication. 4. From the records produced I am satisfied that the last date of publication in the locality was on 19-9-1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is long delay of the local publication as there was about three months delay in the gazette publication as well as local publication. Petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi ( AIR 1984 SC 1721 ) as well as the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sanjivaiah Nagar Depressed and Backward Classes Sangh v. District Collector, Hyderabad (AIR 1983 Andh. Pra. 142). Petitioner also relied on the decision of the Punjab High Court in Satish Kapur and another v. State of Haryana and another (AIR 1982 P & H 276). Files shows that immediately after declaration was made steps were taken for publication in the gazette. After publication in the Gazette and after it is communicated to the office it was copied to the Tahsildar for publication in the notice board and thereafter to the Village Officer for local publication and steps were taken. On the facts of this case I am of the opinion that there is no undue delay and award was passed within the time prescribed under S.11A. Since the procedures are complied with, it cannot be stated that land acquisition proceedings lapsed in this case. 5. Petitioner has got a case that value awarded by the land acquisition officer is very low. Petitioner has to seek remedies as provided under the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. With the above observations, this Original Petition is dismissed.