The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to pass an award within the prescribed period can lead to the lapse of the entire proceedings for land acquisition under S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act.

1. The petitioner challenges certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of his properties for the purpose of construction of a new dairy plant at Trivandrum. Ext. P1 dated 27-5-1981 is the notification issued under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961. From the counter affidavit of respondent No I, it is seen that this was published in the Kerala Kaumudi and Malayala Manorama dailies dated 2-6-1981. Petitioner objected to the acquisition of his land as per a statement of objection, a copy of which is Ext, P2. He followed it up with a further representation before the 4th respondent for whose purposes the land was being acquired by a representation marked Ext. P3. However, these representations did not bear fruit and the declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 29th May, 1984. A true copy of this declaration is Ext.P4. Petitioner had however been making representations in the meanwhile against the proposed acquisition, and a representation made by him to Government was rejected by the order Ext.P5 dated 4-6-1984. Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P4 and P5 in these proceedings.

2. The ground on which the petitioner challenged these proceedings in the original petition was that the notification Ext.P under S.3(1) was dated 27-5-1981 but the declaration under S 6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act dated 28-5-1984 was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 29-5-1984. It was therefore stated that the declaration under S.6 was beyond the period of three years prescribed by the proviso to S.6(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and therefore the entire proceedings had ceased to be operative. This contention raised in the original petition has no substance, having regard to the fact that the notification under S.3 was actually published in the dailies only on 2-6-1981. The proviso to S.6(1) requires only that the declaration under S.6 should not be made after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under S.3(1). Since the notification under S.3(1) was published on 2-6-1981, the declaration under S.6 could be published on or before 2-6-1984. Therefore the declaration published in the Kerala Gazette dated 29-5-1984 is within the time prescribed by the proviso to S.6(1) of the Kerala

Land Acquisition Act.

3. Though this point was not therefore available to the petitioner, be raised another new point at the time of bearing of the original petition. It was that no award has yet been passed in the matter and therefore the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land have lapsed as under S.11(A) of the Central Laud Acquisition Act, 1984, which is now applicable to the State.

4. The Central Land Acquisition Act was extended to the State of Kerala by the Central Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984 with effect from 26-9-1984. Under S.30 of the Amending Act, the provisions of the Central Act apply in relation to all proceedings for acquisition initiated earlier, and pending as on 30-4-1982. S.11A of the Central Act provides that if no award is made within & period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings, for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The proviso to the section states that where the said declaration had 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, namely, 26-9-1984. The award in this case should therefore have been passed on or before 26-9-1986. Counsel for the 4th respondent as well as the Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 stated that no award has so far been passed in this case.

5. Normally, therefore the entire proceedings of the petitioner's land for acquisition should lapse.

6. However, counsel for the 4th respondent attempts an argument based on the explanation to S.11A. He states that there was a petition CMP No