1. The petitioner was the owner of land in Sy.No.218/1 of Ayyanthole village in Thrissur district having an extent of 38.875 cents. This was purchased by him by a sale deed dated 10.1.1984. The above land was acquired by the State for the purpose of KINFRA (Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation). Total extent of land acquired in this area is 51.41 acres belonged to 109 land owners. The award was passed on 27.3.2002. Notice in the proceedings for land acquisition was issued in the name of Sri. Alappat Palathingal John, Kattoor, the father of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner was not aware of the land acquisition. This is so clear from Ext.P8 proceedings of the Under Secretary to Government. It is also to be noted that after the award was passed, the writ petition filed by the petitioner as OP.No.18849/1998 was disposed on 8.2.2005 directing the District Collector to consider the petitioner's application for utilizing the land for establishing an industrial workshop in terms of Kerala Land Utilization Act.

2. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 challenging the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that land acquisition proceedings against the land owned by the petitioner were illegal for want of individual notice. The petitioner also challenges the decision of the Government refusing to reconvey the land. When the matter was taken up, the New Land Acquisition Act came into force called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). In the light of Section 24 of the Act 30 of 2013, a new argument has also been raised to challenge the land acquisition proceedings.

3. KINFRA established an industrial estate in the year 2008. The land belonged to the petitioner is the entrance to the knowledge park in the industrial estate established by KINFRA.

4. It is an admitted position by all the parties that the amount determined as compensation is in deposit with the revenue and that has not been deposited in court. The amount is lying in revenue account. In the light of the admitted position as above, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner in the light of Section 24(2) of Act 30 of 2013 that land acquisition proceedings shall deem to have been lapsed on account of nonpayment of compensation.

5. In the light of the facts and circumstances, following points have arisen for consideration:

i. Whether non service of individual notice on petitioner, would render proceedings and award under Land Acquisition Act 1984 as invalid?

ii. Whether for the reason that compensation payable to the petitioner has been deposited in the revenue account would entail proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as lapsed in terms of Section 24 (2) of Act 30 of 2013?

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief’s?

6. Point No.1:

Admittedly in revenue records, the name of the petitioner was shown as the owner. Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplate a public notice. Section 4(1) refers to publication of preliminary notification. Section 6 refers declaration that land is required for public purpose. This public notice certainly will give a constructive notice to a land owner even if he was not individually served. The very purpose of such public notice is to give notice to all persons who are interested in the land to raise objections as well as to make them aware that the land is being acquired for a public purpose. Once an award is passed, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be called in question for violation of any procedural lapses. See the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager Telecommunication and another Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan and others (1995 Supp (4) SCC 268), Puttu Lal (Dead) by Lrs v. State of U.P. and another (1996 (3) SCC 99), State of Gujarat v. Panch of Nani Hamam's Paul & others (1986 (1) SCC 566) and Mahadeo v. Sub Divisional Officer & ot