DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Introduction:

1. In a couple of villages, in Thiruvananthapuram District, Government proposed to acquire lands for an on-going project. It took steps. Out of many landowners affected, eight persons have challenged the acquisition proceedings, in their entirety. But, in the end, they confined their objections-bereft of pleadings, though-to only two issues: (a) that the Government’s invocation of urgency clause is an abuse of process (b) that the award was passed beyond two years from the date of initial notification.

2. The writ petition, we will see in this writ appeal whether those two pleas could be sustained.

Case in Brief:

3. Thoufeeq and six others (“the landowners”) owned properties in Villages Pallipuram, Andoorkonam, Velloor, and Melthonnakkal of Thiruvananthapuram District. They faced acquisition proceedings.

4. The Government wanted to develop Techno City. For Phase IV of its development, it invoked urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act (“the Old Act”) and, on 05.10.2006, issued a Notification under Section 4 (1), read with Section 17 (4). The daily newspapers had the Notification published on 07.10.2006.

5. First, the Government intended to acquire 732 acres; later it reduced the extent to 507 acres. The draft declaration under Section of the Old Act was published on 31.05.2007 for Pallipuram Village and on 03.12.2007 for the other villages.

6. Later, Ext. P1 Notification under Section 9(1), read with Section 17(1), was published in the Kerala Gazette, dated. 01.06.2007. Given the landowners’ persistent petitions to the authorities often about, what the landowners call, gross irregularities in the land acquisition, the Government, in May 2007, issued Ext.P10 showing the category of lands proposed to be acquired. Later, in January 2008, it issued Ext.P11 modifying Ext.P10. After fixing the rates of compensation for a possible negotiated acquisition, the Government issued Ext.P12 G.O. Dated 16.1.2008.

7. Again, the landowners, in May and August 2008, submitted Ext.P8 and P8(a) memoranda to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It seems to have resulted in the revised rates of compensation, in December 2009, through Ext.P13 G.O. At any rate, complaining that the acquisition was flawed, the landowners filed WP (C) No. 18175 of 2009.

8. The landowners have questioned the land acquisition proceedings as unnecessary and an abuse of process. And they obtained an interim stay against dispossession, too. In the course of time, they filed a couple of interlocutory applications for different purposes. In those IAs they introduced other pleas, reflecting the later developments. They also aligned their later pleadings with the new Act: The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the New Act”). But the landowners never amended the writ pleadings.

9. Nevertheless, the landowners ended up in the writ petition raising two principle pleas: (a) that the Government invoked the urgency clause with no justification; (b) that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 11A of the old Act, because the LAO did not pass the award in two years from the date of notification.

10. On 13.8.2009, the landowners obtained an interim stay against its possession. It was granted till 13.11.2009, three months. The order of stay stood extended intermittently.

11. Eventually, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed the award on 29.1.2010. Reckoning the date of initial notification under Section 9(1), that is 3.12.2007; the landowners contended that the award was passed beyond two years, so it is hit by Section 11 of the old Act. According to them, the notice of the award dated 01.04.2017 under section 12(2) was communicated to the landowners only on 04.4.2017. Throughout, the possession continued with the landowners.

The Writ-Outcome:

12.