The principle of piecemeal acquisition and the effect of sections leading to an award were discussed. The court held that a declaration under S.6 does not exhaust itself until it has resulted in an award or awards covering the total area declared.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 - S.3, S.6, S.9, S.20, S.25 - The court discussed the principle of piecemeal acquisition and the effect of sections leading to an award. It held that a declaration under S.6 does not exhaust itself until it has resulted in an award or awards covering the total area declared. The intent of the legislature is to keep the declaration in full force and vigour until the land declared under it has been acquired in full.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company owning rubber estates, had lands notified for acquisition under S.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961. The petitioner's complaint was that further acquisitions were made in respect of the properties covered by previous notifications and awards.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the impugned awards should not be interfered with, as the authorities acted bona fide and for good reasons. It held that the declaration under S.6 does not exhaust itself until it has resulted in an award or awards covering the total area declared.
Issues: The main issue was whether further acquisitions made in respect of the properties covered by previous notifications and awards were permissible under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a declaration under S.6 does not exhaust itself until it has resulted in an award or awards covering the total area declared. The intent of the legislature is to keep the declaration in full force and vigour until the land declared under it has been acquired in full.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed with no costs.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner is a company owning rubber estates. Lands belonging to the petitioner had been notified for acquisition under S.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (the "Act"). Different notifications were made in respect of different plots of land belonging to the petitioner. Exts. P1, P2 and P3 are notifications issued under S.3 of the Act covering 17 hectares, 52 Ares, 0.8 sq. metres; 27 hectares, 85 Ares, 86 sq. metres; and, 62 hectares, 25 Ares, 28 sq. metres, respectively. Exts. P1 and P2 are dated 31-10-1977 and Ext. P3 is dated 5-12-1977. Declarations under S.6 had been made by Exts. P4, P5 and P6 dated 28-1-1979, 2-11-1978, and 4-12-1978, respectively in relation to plots notified under Exts. P1, P2 and P3. In respect of these plots notices under S.9 (3) & (5) were issued by Exts. P7 and P10 dated 30-1-1979 and 8-2-1979 respectively in regard to Ext. P1 plot; by Exts. P8 and P11 dated 20-12-1978 and 4-1-1979 respectively in regard to Ext.P2 plot; and by Exts. P9 and P12 dated 4-1-1979 and 20-1-1979 respectively in in regard to Ext. P3 plot. In respect of all these lands Ext. P13 award dated 20-3-1979, Ext, P14 award dated 23-3-1979 and Ext. P15 award dated 23-3-1979 respectively had been made. So far so good. The petitioner had no complaint either as regards the public purpose stated in Exts. P1 to P3 or the declarations made under S.6 or the notices issued under S.9 or the awards made, subject to the disputes concerning compensation, etc., which are matters now pending in the Civil Court. The complaint of the petitioner is that inspite of the awards, Exts. P13 to P15, further acquisitions were subsequently made in respect of the properties covered by S.3 notifications, S.6 declarations and S.9 notices, but left out by Exts. P13 to P15 awards. Further acquisitions have been made as per Exts. P17, P19 and P21 awards dated 21-2-1981 relating to 7 hectares, 30 Ares;1 hectare, 14 Ares, 52 Sq. metres; and 2 hectares; 12 Ares, 78 sq. metres respectively. Although, these additional plots had been covered by the earlier proceedings preceding the first set of awards, the contention of the petitioner is that the additional acquisitions cannot be permitted under the Act. Referring to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Omeda Khatun (AIR. 1956 Cal. 122), the petitioner's counsel Shri Joseph Vellapally submits that the power to make an award pursuant to S.3 notification and S.6 declaration can be exercised only once; and once an award has been made, that power is completely and finally exhausted. The Act does not postulate piecemeal awards. An award once made is final and conclusive as regards the land declared. Both the persons interested in the land and the maker of the award are bound by the award, subject to the right of the interested parties to challenge it in terms of S.20.

2. An identical question arose for the consideration of the Calcutta High Court in the decision mentioned above. Referring to the contention of the persons interested in the land to the effect that the Act contemplated "one notice, one declaration, one proceeding and one award and that the declaration under S.6, exhausts itself as soon as it has terminated in one award", the Court pointed out that such extreme contention could not be accepted for in certain cases separate awards would be warranted in relation to lands notified and declared for acquisition. Then the Court proceeded to specify those special cases warranting separate awards. Those are:

"(a) Where the land in respect of which the declaration under S.6 has been made is under the ownership of different individuals and (b) where the acquisition proceeding in respect of the declared land (whether under the ownership of a single or different individuals) is held up by circumstances over which the acquiring authority has no control, e. g, by an injunction or the decision of a superior court and that injunction is subsequently dissolved or the deci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document