JUDGMENT : The Works of Defence Act, 1903, empowers the Central Government to impose restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of any work of defence, by issuing a declaration to that effect under the sanction of Section 3(1) to it. 2. Once a declaration as afore is made, it is further enjoined by Section 3(2) of the said Act, to have it published in the official Gazette and the District Collector is, thereupon obliged to cause a public notice of the substance of the same in the “locality” in the manner stipulated therein. Once the publication of such notice is completed, Section 7 of the Act provides that the restrictions, as enumerated therein, will attach with reference to the lands covered by the declaration of the Central Government. 3. The relevance of the afore preface to this case will become apparent after I record the essential facts involved. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court alleging that, even though the competent Authority of the Government of India has issued Ext.P6 declaration under Section 3(1) of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, (hereinafter referred as “the Act” for short), it never came into effect on account of the fact that the afore seen mandatory subsequent statutory publication of it in the locality, by the District Collector, under Section 3(2) thereof, was not admittedly done. 5. The petitioners allege that, however, in spite of this and though Ext.P6 has now ceased to be in effect, restrictions are being placed unfairly on the development and use of their properties, though it is situated in the “residential zone” of the 2nd respondent – Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL) and which would not, in any manner, hamper their “Installation Zone”, which is on its opposite side. 6. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Ext.P6 declaration be quashed and that the consequential Ext.P4 and such other interdictory proceedings initiated by other respondents, be declared to be illegal and unlawful. 7. When I heard Smt. Chincy Gopakumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines, I asked Smt. S. Krishna – learned Central Government Counsel, whether the mandatory consequential publication of Ext.P6 declaration, under Section 3(2) of the Act, had been done by the District Collector. 7. When I heard Smt. Chincy Gopakumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines, I asked Smt. S. Krishna – learned Central Government Counsel, whether the mandatory consequential publication of Ext.P6 declaration, under Section 3(2) of the Act, had been done by the District Collector. She conceded that the materials and documents on record do not indicate any such publication having been done; but added that this was statutorily enjoined on the said Authority to have done so. 8. Smt. S. Krishna then prayed that this Court may not deny the benefits of the statutory protection to the NPOL, merely for the afore reason, since they require to expand its operational facilities into the present “residential zone” also; further vehemently asserting that the factum of the necessary publication, consequent to Ext.P6 declaration, not having been made by the District Collector cannot be attributed against the Government of India, because they were following it up with the said Authority continuously every year and that such failure will have to be seen seriously. 9. Smt. Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, submitted that the counter affidavit of the District Collector has been filed on record, wherein, the following averments have been made: It is submitted that the gazette notification SRO.No.11 dated 19.02.2010 was received in this office on 22.10.2010. True copy of the letter No.NPOL/Wks/559/NA dated 20.10.2010 by the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(a). By S.R.O No.11 Central Government issued a declaration in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the works of Defence Act 1908 that it is necessary to impose restrictions specified in clause (C) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of all the land comprised in the area lying within the distance of twenty five meters from the crest of the outer parapet of the boundary wall of Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory, Thrikkakara. Accordingly a press release was given on 02.12.2010, as per file No.M7-46196/08. True copy of the press release of the District Collector dated 02.12.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(b). Necessary directions in this regard has been communicated to the Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality, the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi, and the Tahsildar, Kanayannur vide letter No.M7-46196/08 dated 02.12.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(c). Necessary directions in this regard has been communicated to the Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality, the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi, and the Tahsildar, Kanayannur vide letter No.M7-46196/08 dated 02.12.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(c). It is submitted that a further communication was received from the 2nd respondent on 31.07.2018 stating that vide S.R.O.No.11 dated 19.02.2010 restriction has been imposed as specified in clause (c) of Section 7 of the works of Defence Act and requested to cause public notice under intimation to the 2nd respondent. True copy of the communication No.NPOL/A/Wks/355/NA dated 31.07.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(d). After receiving Annexure R1(d) communication a further communication No.DCEKM/14595/2018-L16 dated 10.01.2019 was sent to the Secretary, Thrikkakkara Municipality requesting to take action. As per letter No.R.P-1354/2019 dated 11.04.2019 the Secretary of Thrikkakkara Municipality and submitted a report stating that the notification process has been completed by publishing in the Daily News Papers and intimated the same to the NPOL Authority. True copy of the Reply submitted by the Secretary, Thrikkakkara Municipality is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(e). It is submitted that 2nd respondent has submitted an application No.NPL/A/Wks/565 dated 05.01.2021 before this respondent requesting to provide a true copy of latest sketch of NPOL notified area at the earliest. True copy of the letter No.NPOL/A/Wks/565 dated 19.01.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(f). Accordingly direction is given to the Tahsildar (LR), Kanayannur vide letter No.DCEKM/7721/2020/L3 dated 19.02.2021 from this office for providing the sketch of the notified area of NPOL to the 2nd respondent. The learned Government Pleader thus prayed that no further orders be issued against her clients. 10. When the afore extracted asseverations of the District Collector are viewed closely, it becomes ineluctable that after Ext.P6 declaration was issued by the Government of India, the statutorily imperative publication of the same has not been done by the said Authority until now. The learned Government Pleader thus prayed that no further orders be issued against her clients. 10. When the afore extracted asseverations of the District Collector are viewed closely, it becomes ineluctable that after Ext.P6 declaration was issued by the Government of India, the statutorily imperative publication of the same has not been done by the said Authority until now. This is irrefutable – as is also admitted – because Section 9 of the Act requires that the District Collector cause a public notice to be given at convenient places near the land, over which the declaration under Section 3(1) is made, explaining the effect of such declaration and specifically stating therein that “all claim for compensation for all interests in such land affected by anything done or order in pursuance of such declaration” be made to him. However, the afore extracted averments do not even sotto voce indicate any such notice or publication having been made, even as on date. 11. Therefore, the decisive question really is whether the said declaration continues to be in effect ad infinitum. The answer to this can only be to the negative because, Section 9 of the Act also specifies the time frames for issuing/making the publications/notices under Section 3(2) thereof, which, it is unequivocally admitted, have now expired. When none of the afore provisions had been complied with and it is unreservedly admitted that no publication or notice under Section 3(2) or Section 9 of the Act had been made/issued by the District Collector any time after Ext.P6 declaration, the rigour of the same would certainly have to be construed as having been obliterated; and consequently, that the development of their properties by the petitioners cannot be interdicted any further. 12. There can be no two ways about this because, Section 7 of the Act apodictically provides that it is only “from and after the publication of the notice (by the District Collector) under Section 3, Sub Section (2), such of the following restrictions as the Central Government may in its discretion declare therein shall attach with reference to such land”. (words in brackets supplied). 13. (words in brackets supplied). 13. Axiomatically, therefore, until a fresh declaration is made by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Act, the Local Self Government Institutions, or such other Authorities, cannot sequester or fetter the rights of the petitioners to deal with their properties as per the applicable Statues and Regulations; and am, therefore, of the firm view that they are entitled to relief in this writ petition. 14. I am persuaded to the afore also because the petitioners have filed an additional affidavit before this Court, in support of I.A.Nos.3/2021 and 4/2021, wherein, the satellite map of the area has been produced, which would perspicuously show that countless other persons have already made constructions in properties within the area covered by Ext.P6 declaration, after it had been made, without any objection being raised by any of the competent Authorities. Indubitably, therefore, the petitioners alone cannot be discriminated or singled out from being granted permission to use their properties merely because the Government of India issued Ext.P6 declaration under Section 3 of the Act as early as in the year 2010. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and declare that Ext.P6 declaration of the Government of India has ceased to be in effect; and consequently that the petitioners are entitled to deal with their properties in any manner as is permitted under law, for which purpose, they can approach the competent Authorities, including the Local Self Government Institutions concerned. It is needless to say that the observations contained in this judgment are solely confined to the specific factual factors noticed and presented; and hence will not, in any manner, influence the right of the Government of India to issue a fresh declaration under Section 3 of the Act, if they so choose.