Judgment :- B.N. SRIKRISHNA , C.J. These four appeals arise out of connected facts and raise same issues of law and , hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. We shall refer to the facts as narrated in W.A. No 1465 of 1999 and also to the parties as arrayed therein. 3. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 15 are parties to certain land acquisition proceedings. Respondent No. 16 is the State of Kerala, Respondent No. 17 is the Land Acquisition Officer and Respondent No. 18 is the District Collector, Palakkad. (a) On 26th April, 1974 the K.S.R.T.C. requested the District Collector, Palakkad to acquire certain lands for expansion of its Palakkad depot. The land of which acquisition was sought was (1) Sy. No. 2361/1 - 0.0405 Hectare (10 Cents), (2) 2395/1 - 0.0850 Hectare (21 cents), (3) 2396/1 - 0.6151 Hectare (152 cents). Thus, the total land of which acquisition was sought was 0.7406 Hectae (183 cents). (b) On 23.8.1976, one Abdul Wahab Rawther who was the joint owner of the aforesaid lands filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer and sought exclusion of an ancestral building situated on Sy.No.2396/1 from the acquisition proceedings on the ground that he and his other family members were residing in the building constructed thereupon and that they had no other place either in Palakkd or anywhere in Kerala for residence. (c) On 30.9.1976, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad who was also the Land Acquisition Officer, published a notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of 0.7460 Hectare (183 cents) of land on the survey numbers as above. (d) On 19.10.1976, the District Collector, Palakkad in proceedings No.C/76 made an order invoking the urgency clause under Section 19 of the Act and also ordered that the provisions of Section 5 thereof shall not be made applicable to the case. Consequently, no enquiry contemplated under Section 5 of the Act was conducted. The objections raised by Abdul Wahab Rawther was not entertained. (e) On 4.8.1977, the Board of Revenue in its proceeding of the same date approved the draft declaration and sent it for publication. (f) On 4.10.1977, the draft declaration was published in Part III of the Kerala Gazatte dated 4.10.1977 at page 3042. The objections raised by Abdul Wahab Rawther was not entertained. (e) On 4.8.1977, the Board of Revenue in its proceeding of the same date approved the draft declaration and sent it for publication. (f) On 4.10.1977, the draft declaration was published in Part III of the Kerala Gazatte dated 4.10.1977 at page 3042. Subsequently, the General Manager of the K.S.R.T.C. executed an agreement in Form No.24 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules with the State Government. (g) On 8.11.1977, the land concerned was surveyed and subdivided and the subdivision records were prepared and technically scrutinized by the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Palakkad and the same were published in Part III of the Kerala Gazette dated 8.11.1977 at page 3395. (h) On 1.2.1978 and 9.2.1978, notices under Sections 9(i) and 10 of the Act were published on the notice boards of the concerned offices. (i) On 13.2.1978, the detailed valuation statement approved by the District Collector by his proceedings dated 13.2.1978 were prepared. (j) On 14.2.1978, the correct and scrutinized extent of land comprised in the three survey numbers was published in Part III of Kerala Gazette dated 14.2.1978 at pages 397 and 398. The scrutinized and correct extent of land on the three survey numbers was as under: S1. Survey Notified Correct and No. No. extent scrutinised extent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 2361/1 0.0405 H. 0.0414 H (10.23 cents) 2. 2395/1 0.0850 H. 0.0856 H (21.15 cents) 3. 2396/2 0.6151 H. 0.4100 H (101 cents) ------------------------------------------------------ Total 0.7406 H. 0.537 H. (132 cents) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (k) On 25.2.1978, notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were served on all the interested parties. An enquiry was held on 25.2.1978 during which the correct and scrutinized extent of land was ascertained as notified in the Gazette. (l) On 21.3.1978, Award No,3/78 in respect of land in Sy.No.2361/1, Award No.4/78 in respect of land in Sy.No.2395/1 and Award No.5/78 in respect of land in Sy.No.2396/2 were made. The compensation amounts granted in each award were as under. Award No.3/78 0.0414 H (10.23 C) Rs.14,312.70 Award No.4/78 0.0856 H (21.15C) Rs.29,837.92 Award No.5/78 0.4100 H (101 C) Rs. 341,236.03 On a demand by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad the K.S.R.T.C. remitted an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- for the purpose of distribution of the compensation as found in the awards. This amount has subsequently been deposited in the Sub Court, Palakkad. 341,236.03 On a demand by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad the K.S.R.T.C. remitted an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- for the purpose of distribution of the compensation as found in the awards. This amount has subsequently been deposited in the Sub Court, Palakkad. The Revenue Divisional officer by his letter of the same date requested the General Manager of K.S.R.T.C. to depute a responsible person to take charge of the concerned land and improvements made thereupon as acquired by Award Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 1978 from the Tahsildar, Palakkad. (m) On 29.3.1978, Abdul Wahab Rawther filed O.P.No.944 of1978 before this court challenging the acquisition proceedings and his dispossession from the residential building. Although an interim order was made for a short period of 14 days, the interim order came to an end thereafter. (n) On 11.4.1978, a mahazar was prepared for handing over the land as per Award Nos.3 and 4 of 1978. As far as the land which was the subject matter of Award No.5/78 was concerned, only a small portion of land admeasuring 5 cents in Sy.No.2396/2 with a building together with a car shed was handed over. (o) On 29.5.1978, Abdul Wahab Rawther filed a representation before the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. to exempt his share of property from acquisition. (p) On 31.7.1978, the K.S.R.T.C. addressed a letter to Abdul Wahab Rawther informing him that the Corporation could examine his request only after the disposal of O.P.No.944 of 1978 pending in the High Court and subject to the following conditions: "(1) All parties interested in the building and the land sought to be excluded from acquisition should execute a joint agreement in writing to the effect that none of them shall claim any compensation from the Corporation on account of or by reason of exclusion of the building and site from acquisition. (2) The petitioner shall get his share of the building and the land demarcated by the Revenue authorities concerned and intimate the Corporation so as to take up the matter of exclusion of such property from acquisition. (2) The petitioner shall get his share of the building and the land demarcated by the Revenue authorities concerned and intimate the Corporation so as to take up the matter of exclusion of such property from acquisition. (3) In the event of exclusion of the property, the Land Acquisition Officer shall also be requested to determine the value of the property to be excluded for the purpose of deduction of such amount from the amount of compensation awarded by the concerned authorities." It was also stated by the Corporation that the parties interested in the property should also accept the offer as final and binding on them. The K.S.R.T.C., therefore, requested Abdul Wahab Rawther to arrange to comply with the conditions stipulated in the letter so as to enable the Corporation to examine his request for exclusion of his share of the property from acquisition. (q) On 4.9.1978, Abdul Wahab Rawther informed the K.S.R.T.C. that he was unable to get consent of all the co-sharers as required by the K.S.R.T.C. in its letter dated 31.7.1978 and, therefore, requested the K.S.R.T.C. to modify the proposal made by it so that his share could be taken out of the acquisition proceedings. (r) On 3.10.1978, the K.S.R.T.C. addressed a letter to the District Collector, Palakkad to take action for handing over the building and land as per Award No.5/78 since it was not in a position to accept the counter proposal put forth by Abdul Wahab Rawther. On the same date, the Corporation communicated to Abdul Wahab Rawther that it could not agree to exempt any portion of land from acquisition. In the meanwhile, Abdul Wahab Rather presented a joint declaration dated 2.10.1978 accepting the conditions imposed by the letter of the K.S.R.T.C. dated 31.7.1978, but incorporating his own condition that it was being done without prejudice to the right of the parties to claim enhanced compensation over the portion acquired and retained by K.S.R.T.C. after exclusion. (s) On 9th October 1978, Abdul Wahab Rawther informed the Court that he was not pressing O.P.No.944 of 1978 in view of the letter dated 31.7.1978 addressed to him by the K.S.R.T.C. The said original petition was, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. (s) On 9th October 1978, Abdul Wahab Rawther informed the Court that he was not pressing O.P.No.944 of 1978 in view of the letter dated 31.7.1978 addressed to him by the K.S.R.T.C. The said original petition was, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. (t) On 21.11.1978, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad requested the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C to inform him whether there was any change in the decision already taken by the K.S.R.T.C. by its letter dated 3.10.1978 in the light of the dismissal of O.P.No.944 of 1978 and presentation of a joint declaration dated 2.10.1978 made by the parties interested in the land. (u) On 21.12.1978, the K.S.R.T.C. granted time upto 31.3.1979 to Abdul Wahab Rawther for getting demarcated his share by the Revenue authorities. (v) On 24.3.1979, Abdul Wahab Rawther presented a sketch prepared by the Town Surveyor, Palakkad showing his share of the property. (w) On 25.4.1979, the District Collector, Palakkad wrote to the General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. requesting him to intimate the decision consequent to the presentation of the joint declaration dated 2.10.1978 by Abdul Wahab Rawther and his co-sharers. (x) oN 30.6.1979, the K.S.R.T.C. wrote to the District Collector intimating its decision that the main building and adjoining land should be exempted from acquisition. (y) Abdul Wahab Rawther moved O.P.No.3682 of 1980 before this court. His brothers M.S.Ahammed Sahib Rawther and Haji M.S.Sulaiman Rawther also filed O.P.No.3870 of 1980 before this court for the very same purpose. (z) On 21.2.1983, these two original petitions were disposed of by a judgment of the learned Single judge of the this court (justice S.K.Kader). A perusal of this judgment shows that the counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. (5th respondent therein) submitted before the court that the parties interested had reached an agreement as described in the letter dated 31.7.1978 (Ext.P2 therein) and necessary action would be taken immediately in the matter in the light of the agreement reached between the parties which was marked as Ext.P4 in O.P.No.3879 of 1980 and the notice issued under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the properties involved could, hence, be set aside. The learned Single judge accepted this statement made by the counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. and passed the operative judgment in the following terms: "In the circumstances, without going into the merit or demerits of the contentions raised on both sides I set aside Ext.P4 in O.P.No.3682 of 1980-E and Ext.P in O.P.No.3870/80-I. In both the petitions the 5th Respondent KSRTS will take appropriate action to implement Ext.P2 in the light of the agreement referred to above. These O.Ps. are disposed of as above.” We may mention here that Exts.P4 and P5 referred to were notices issued by the Revenue authorities for taking possession of the land which was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings pursuant to the awards. The direct consequence of the aforesaid judgment was to quash and set aside the said notices without, however, in any way interfering with the acquisition proceedings or the awards made under the Act. 4. Nothing was done thereafter by the K.S.R.T.C. for a period of about six years. By this time all three Rawther brothers died. Sometime in December 1989, a joint declaration signed by the legal heirs and successors of the deceased Abdul Wahab Rawther, M.S.Ahammed Sahib Rawther and Haji M.S.Sulaiman Rawther was presented to the K.S.R.T.C. to implement what was stated in its letter dated 31st July, 1978. On 28th May, 1990 a letter was addressed by the legal heirs of Rawther brothers to The Managing Dirctor, K.S.R.T.C. forwarding a copy of the joint declaration and a copy of the demarcated plan. On 11.1.1991 the joint declaration was filed by the legal heirs of three Rawther brothers expressing their willingness to surrender a strip of land and pathway 3 meters wide and 57 meters long as per the sketch which was enclosed. 5. On 11.1.1991 the joint declaration was filed by the legal heirs of three Rawther brothers expressing their willingness to surrender a strip of land and pathway 3 meters wide and 57 meters long as per the sketch which was enclosed. 5. Despite all this correspondence nothing transpired and no concrete steps were taken by the K.S.R.T.C. S.A.Abdul Azeez, one of the legal heirs of the deceased abdul Wahab Rawther, filed O.P.No.9093 of 1993 in this court in which the following relieves were sought: "(1) to quash the land acquisition notification and award No.5/78, (2) cancellation of acquisition proceedings and to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners and others, (3) to restrain the Municipal Commissioner from demolishing the temporary building constructed by the petitioner on the land and (4) to direct the Commissioner to consider the application and plan submitted by the petitioner for construction of a permanent structure upon the land." Another writ petition O.P.No.9327 of 1993 was filed by 15 legal heirs of the three Rawther brother. The prayers made therein were to quash the land acquisition notification and award Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 178 and for cancellation of the acquisition proceedings. O.P.Nos.9093 and 9327 of 1993 were disposed of by a common judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of those court on 17th March, 1999. 6. The main prayers in both the writ petitions were to quash the notification issued under the Act in the year 1978 and for quashing the awards made in the year 1978, particularly Award No.5 of 1978 and for exempting at least the land on which the ancestral house was situated from the acquisition proceedings. One would have expected that a petition filed in the year 1993 for interference with the award made in the year 1978 would have been given short shrift by this court. But what transpired before this court is somewhat surprising. A perusal of the judgment indicates that the learned Single Judge noticed that all the parties including the K.S.R.T.C. accepted that there was an agreement arrived at in terms of the letter dated 31.7.1978 (Ext.P1) which had been accepted by the judgment rendered in O.P.No.3682 and 3870 of 1980 (Ext.P2 judgment by justice S.K.Kader). The learned judge, therefore held that inasmuch as the judgment of justice S.K.Kader has not been appealed against by any party, it had become final. The learned judge, therefore held that inasmuch as the judgment of justice S.K.Kader has not been appealed against by any party, it had become final. Therefore, the question of correctness of the notification, in vocation of urgency clause, lack of statutory notification, etc. cannot be pleaded as Ext.P2 judgment had become final. The learned judge then agreed with the plan Ext.P3 produced in O.P.No 9093 of 1993 which also had been accepted by the K.S.R.T.C. as evidenced by Ext.R4(2) in O.P.No.9327 of 1993. The learned Judge extracted some portion from Ext.R4(2) and stated: "counsel appearing for all the parties agree that all parties stick to the same". In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed the District Collector to take possession of the land on the rear of the building (which was agreed to be exempted from acquisition) to an extent of 43 cents of land with approach road having 3 meters width and 50 meters long which the legal heirs and agreed to spare as shown in Ext.P3 plan in O.P.No.9093 of 1993. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the fact that there was an agreement could be seen from Ext.R4(1) and Exts.P1 and P5 in O.P.No. 9327 of 1993 and, therefore, without disturbing the acquisition proceedings the District Collector could take possession only of the rear portion of the building and approach road as already referred to. He further directed that the balance portion may be released to the petitioners and appropriate steps may be taken expeditiously. There was a further direction made that the value of the building and the land which was exempted may be refused to the K.S.R.T.C. and balance alone need be paid to the land owners and the original petition was disposed of "as agreed by all the parties herein". 7. The K.S.R.T.C is in appeal against this judgment by W.A.Nos.146 and 1468 of 1999. The State of Kerala has come in appeal against this judgment by W.A.Nos.146 and 225 of 2000. 8. When these appeals were heard, it was pointed out by Sri.S.Venkatasubramania Iyer, who appears for the non-State respondents, that the judgment proceeded on a concession made a the bar which was recorded in the judgment. Hence, it was contended that the appeal could not be maintained against such a judgment. 8. When these appeals were heard, it was pointed out by Sri.S.Venkatasubramania Iyer, who appears for the non-State respondents, that the judgment proceeded on a concession made a the bar which was recorded in the judgment. Hence, it was contended that the appeal could not be maintained against such a judgment. There was some disagreement at the bar as to whether the concession recorded in the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Justice J.B.Koshy) was correctly recorded. We, therefore, directed the appellant to move the learned single judge for rectifying the record, if necessary. By the order passed on 26.6.2002 justice J.B.Koshy dismissed C.M.P.No.27309 of 2002 by taking the view that the judgment was pronounced in open court after noticing the concessions offered in the presence of advocates appearing for all parties in the cases; that only what had been submitted in the court had been recorded in the judgment and none of the advocates had objected thereto while the judgment was being dictated in open court. He further held that no petition for review was filed immediately within a reasonable time stating that the recording was incorrect and, therefore, the petition had numerated dismissed the same. 9. Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State contend that the Judgment under appeal proceeds on an erroneous basis and needs to be set aside. It is contended that the letter dated 31st July, 1978 addressed by the K.S.R.T.C. to Abdul Wahab Rawther had clearly stipulated certain conditions; the terms in the said letter were in the nature if a proposal which was never accepted by the said Abdul Wahab Rawther so as to result in an agreement. In fact, it is pointed out that the letter of Abdul Wahab Rawther datd 30.4.1978 clearly expressed his inability to fulfill one of the important conditions stipulated by the K.S.R.T.C. with regard to getting consent of all the co-sharers. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, contends that the basic assumption made by both the learned Single Judges (Justice S.K.Kader and Justice J.B.Koshy), that there was an agreement between the K.S.R.T.C. and the owners of the land, is erroneous. 10. If the matter were really res integra before us, perhaps, we might have accepted the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for the appellant. 10. If the matter were really res integra before us, perhaps, we might have accepted the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for the appellant. We, too, are inclined to think that the letter dated 31.7.1978 from the K.S.R.T.C. was only a proposal and unless it was accepted fully and unconditionally there could not have been a resultant agreement. There seems to be justification in the grievance that one of the major conditions imposed was not accepted by Abdul Wahab Rawther as indicated in his letter dated 4.9.1978. Perhaps, if the judgment of Justice Kader were under appeal, we might have been inclined to interfere with it on this ground. Unfortunately, however, that judgment is not under appeal before us. Not only is that judgment not appealed against, but when a second opportunity arose before justice Koshy, when the present original petitions were being heard, no attempt seems to have been made to raise this contention. In fairness to the learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C., we must mention here that in the counter affidavit filed by the K.S.R.T.C. in O.P.No9327 og 1993 it was stated (vide paragraphs 3 and 6) that the agreement could have been arrived at only if its stipulations had been accepted unconditionally, implying thereby that there being no unconditionally, implying thereby that there being no unconditional acceptance of its stipulations and there was no agreement. Unfortunately, however, when the original petitions were argued before the learned Single Judge, there appears to have been a categorical concession made that there was an agreement between the K.S.R.T.C. and the land owners as evidenced by Ext.P2. When the learned Judge hearing the two original petitions read Ext.P3 in O.P.No.9093 of 1993 and the letter of the K.S.R.T.C. at Ext.R4(2) in O.P.No.9327 of 1993 as constituting an agreement, the counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. instead of refuting it, seems to have agreed that the K.S.R.T.C. will 'stick to' what has been suggested in Ext.R4(2), even though the case of K.S.R.T.C. on the record was that there was no agreement. The learned counsel for the K.S.RT.C. reiterated before us that such an agreement never actually fructified, but we find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the K.S.RT.C. reiterated before us that such an agreement never actually fructified, but we find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. On two occasions, once when the petitions were heard before Justice kader, and second time, when the present original petitions were heard before Justice Koshy, counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. accepted unhesitatingly that there was such an agreement arrived at between the K.S.R.T.C. and Abdul Wahab Rawther (now represented by the legal heirs) with regard to the land and building being exempted from the acquisition proceedings. In the face of these concessions, clearly evidenced in the two judgments, we are unable to accept the contention. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant next contends that, irrespective of whatever might have been conceded, neither judgment of Justice Kader, nor the one of Justice Koshy, interferes with and quashes or sets aside Award No.5 of 1978 made in the acquisition proceedings. Nor has the State, as the acquiring body, withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 48 of the Act. Consequently, it is urged that the award remains in tact and must be implemented in full. Here again, we are faced with the same difficulty. If the arguments were made for the first time, perhaps, we might have accepted it. But, on two occasions, separately, it has been noticed by two learned judges that the Corporation, being fully aware that the award had not been set aside, represented to the court through counsel that there was an agreement and that it was 'sticking' by it. The judgment which is under appeal before us proceeds on this reiteration of the concession by the counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention addressed to us across the bar. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that, even if by conduct the State and the K.S.R.T.C. can be said to have withdrawn from the acquisition proceeding, there is no question of the acquired property being returned to its original owner. The property which has once vested in the State can only be disposed of in public auction or by being handed over for being utilised for another public purpose. The property which has once vested in the State can only be disposed of in public auction or by being handed over for being utilised for another public purpose. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this court in Secretary to Government V. Narayanaru Madhusoodharu, 2002 (1) K.L.T. S.N.80 (Case No.101) and also the judgment in State of Kerala V. Bhaskaran Pillain (1997 (2) K.L.T. 217 (SC). In our view, it is not open to the K.S.R.T.C. to urge this contention in view of the categorical stand taken by it in two independent proceedings; once, before Justice S.K.Kader, and again before the learned Single Judge, whose Judgment is under appeal. 13. In the result, we find that the appeals must fail for the sole reason that the appellant had conceded before the learned Single Judge that there was an agreement to exclude the property on which the ancestral house of the non-State respondents is situated. For this reason alone we are not inclined to accept any of the legal contentions addressed to us, irrespective of their merits. 14. Learned counsel for the non-State respondents accept that only 45 cents of land in Sy.No.2396/2 upon which the ancestral house of the non-State respondents is situated shall be retained by them and the balance land comprised in Sy.No.2396/2 admeasuring 51 cents shall be surrendered to the K.S.R.T.C. together with a pathway admeasuring 3 metres/50 meters towards the north of the ancestral house as marked in the plan Ext.P3 in O.P.9093 of 1993 for access to the acquired land which is proposed to be utilisd as extension of the bus stand. Learned counsel for the non-State respondents also agreed that the entire amount of Rs.3,86,000/- deposited in the Sub Court, Palakkad together with interest, if any earned thereupon, shall be returned to the K.S.R.T.C. This, as agreed, shall be done. Demarcation of the 45 cents of land which is to be retained by the non-State respondents be done and possession be taken of the balance land by the K.S.R.T.C., if they have not already taken possession of it, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.