The main legal point established in the judgment is that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act can only be initiated by the Housing Board upon reaching a clear and definite stage of implementation of a finalised scheme under the Housing Board Act.

1. The common question raised in the two cases relates to the validity of acquisition proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Housing Board.

2. The question involves an analysis of the scheme of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and a consideration of its impact on and interplay with the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Acquisition Act'). A single judge of this Court has rendered a decision on the question Rajagopalan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1984 KLT. 462: 1984 K.L.J. 119. The decision is challenged in writ appeal No. 136 of 1984.

3. When on a subsequent occasion, another writ petition O.P. No. 3279 of 1982 came up for hearing, another learned Judge (M.P. Menon J.), referred that case for decision by a Division Bench. The two cases have been heard together.

4. The question involved indubitably of considerable importance both for the Housing Board and for the persons who are likely to be affected by the execution of the schemes and projects of the Housing Board.

5. The bare facts necessary for appreciating the questions of law may now be indicated.

6. The writ appeal concerns acquisition proceedings started in Trivandrum. The Housing Board came into being in the Trivandrum Taluk with effect from 5-3-1971. The Housing Board at its meeting held on 26-8-1978 decided to acquire a fairly extensive area within the Trivandrum city. It is admitted that barring the resolution at the meeting dated 26-8-1978, no tangible steps had been taken by the Board for the framing or finalisation of the Housing Accommodation Scheme. On the basis of a requisition sent by the Housing Board, a notification under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 12-12-1978. The objections filed before the Land Acquisition Authority were rejected and a declaration under S.6 was published on 15-2-1981 in a local newspaper. Notice under S.9(3) of the Acquisition Act was thereafter issued on 17-2-1981. It was at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court seeking reliefs under Art.226 of the Constitution.

7. The steps under the Housing Board Act were being taken in a leisurely pace in the meanwhile. Nearly one year after the notification under S.9(3) of the Acquisition Act, the Board issued notice regarding the publication of the housing scheme under S.50 of the Housing Board Act. That notice was published in a newspaper on 27-12-1979. That was objected to by the petitioner on 16-1-1980 on diverse grounds. It is an admitted fact that the proceedings under the Housing Board Act have not been processed and finalised, as envisaged under the scheme of that Act. Yet, the acquisition proceedings under the Acquisition Act have been virtually completed and finalised. The Board of Revenue has also rejected the objection of the petitioner filed in the course of the proceedings under the Acquisition Act.

8. The second case deals with an acquisition in Ernakulam District for what is termed as 'Sub-urban Accommodation Scheme.' The Secretary of the Housing Board by his letter dated 24-8-1977 sought acquisition of about 120 acres of land. The land acquisition proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the proceedings of the Collector dated 5-12-1977. S.3(1) notification was published on 20-12-1977. The draft declaration was approved by the Board on 20-10-1979 and published in the Gazette dated 4-12-1979. According to the petitioner, even the first step of a notice under S.50 of the Housing Board Act has not been issued. Even so, the acquisition is almost a fait accompli, with the publication of the declaration in the Gazette. Here also, the contention of the petitioner is that having regard to the omission to take any tangible steps under the Housing Board Act for framing or finalisation of a scheme, it is impermissible for the Board to set in motion the machinery of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act.

9. The learned single ju