The actual extent needed for a public purpose is to be decided by the authorities under the Act and not by the court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Petitioners in these Original Petitions challenge the proceedings initiated by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act for acquiring lands belonging to them for the Neyyattinkara Municipality. Issues raised in these petitions are identical. Therefore I consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common judgment.

2. O. P. 4518/89 was filed by two petitioners. First petitioner filed statement dated 14-12-1990 to the following effect :

"I have decided not to challenge the acquisition of my property. Hence it is essential in the interest of justice to vacate the stay in C.M.P. No. 13073/89 with regard to my property and allow me to withdraw my challenge against the acquisition of my property."

Thus the second petitioner alone is interested in O.P. 4518 / 89.

3. The Neyyattinkara Municipality passed a resolution on 29-7-1976 to acquire three acres 90 cents of property in various survey numbers in Neyyattinkara village for construction of a shopping complex. In pursuance to that resolution, notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Kerala Act' was published in 1978. No further step was taken on the basis of that notification. Consequently it lapsed. In 1980, a fresh notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Act was published for acquiring the identical properties. Some of the land owners challenged the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Act before this Court in O.Ps.8578/82 and 10628/82. The authorities under the Kerala Act did not pursue the proceedings in pursuance to the notification of 1980. Consequently the entire proceedings lapsed. Hence the Original Petitions were disposed of as having become infructuous. Thereafter fresh proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) was issued. It was published in the official Gazette dated 15-9-1987, in Kerala Kaumudi and Mathrubhumi dailies dated 24-8-1987 and 28-8-1987 respectively. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 12-10-1987. Objections were filed challenging the notification. These objections were considered by the Board of Revenue. Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made by the Board of Revenue on 7-10-1988. It was published in the locality on 7-10-1988 itself. Declaration was published in Kerala Kaumudi and Mathrubhumi dailies dated 11-10-1988 and 12-10-1988 respectively. It was notified in the Gazette dated 11-10-1988. Owners of two properties questioned the validity of the declaration before this Court in O.P. 10051/ 88 on the ground that the declaration was made after expiry of one year from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. That Original Petition was dismissed and the petitioners therein took up the matter in Writ

Appeal 432/89. The decision in the Writ Appeal is reported in Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala, (1989) 2 Ker LT 71. This Court upheld the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act observing :

"We have therefore no hesitation in repelling the contention of the appellants that the declaration under Section 6 (1) was made in this case after the expiry of one year from date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1)."

After that decision when the authorities proceeded with the steps for passing the award these Original Petitions have been filed.

4. Petitioners in O. P. 4518/89 moved C.M.P. 13073/89 praying for stay of operation of the proceedings for the acquisition. This Court by order dated 22-6-1989 directed the respondents not to take possession of the land pending disposal of the writ petition. Similarly petitioners in O.P. 2482/90 moved C.M.P. 4478/90. There also this Court passed an order of stay of the dispossession of the petitioners. Municipality has filed C.M.P. 10835/90 in O.P. 4518/89 and C. M. P. 10842/91 in O.P. 2282/90 for vacating the orders of stay.

5. The main contention raised by the petitioners in these Original Petit