SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20996

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J
K.BABY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/10695/2007



Advocates:
SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

Failure to issue a declaration under Section 6(1) within the prescribed time causes lapse of land acquisition proceedings.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Writ Petition - Land Acquisition Act Section 4(1), Section 6(1) - The court held that failure to issue Section 6(1) declaration within prescribed time rendered the acquisition proceedings lapsed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, owners of lands, challenged a notification for land acquisition for a proposed link road, claiming no necessity for such a road due to an existing Panchayat road. They argued that demolition of their structures would not benefit the public.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had failed to issue the necessary declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within the required timeframe, leading to the lapse of the acquisition proceedings.

Issues: Whether the failure to issue a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within the prescribed time lapsed the acquisition proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of issuance of Section 6(1) declaration within the required period is fatal to the acquisition process, thus validating the petitioners' challenge.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, declaring the notification for acquisition lapsed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the owners and persons in possession of immovable properties comprised in Sy.Nos.148 and 158 in Block No.35 of Pooyappally Village of Kottarakkara Taluk. They are challenging Ext.P2 notification issued by the fourth respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') and published in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 30.3.2006 to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioners for the formation of a link road for Pooyappally Grama Panchayat. The proposal is to construct a link road to connect Oyur - Pooyappally road on the south and Thrippan Kavu - Maruthamanpally road on the north. According to the petitioners there is already a Panchayat road connecting these two roads and there is absolutely no need to form another link road. It is averred that the proposed link road will not serve any purpose and many structures are to be demolished and this will not likely to benefit the public. It is also averred that the public in the locality have filed a representation before the District Collector to drop the proceedings. It is further averred that on the representation the District Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar concerned who had forwarded a report to the effect that there is an existing Panchayat way and it is preferable and less expensive to widen the existing WP(C)No.10695/2007 2 Panchayat way than to construct a new link road. It is averred that in spite of these facts the Panchayat is bent upon to proceed with the acquisition. Hence this Writ Petition to quash Ext.P2 notification.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter. Fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that on receipt of the requisition from the fifth respondent Panchayat steps were taken for acquisition. It is contended that the request in the requisition was to acquire land to form a link road from RPS Junction to Kurisinmood Junction and on receipt of the same Ext.P2 notification was issued. It is also contended that a mass petition was filed before the District Collector against the proposed acquisition. A copy of the petition was forwarded to the fifth respondent for their remarks to which fifth respondent had not given any reply. It is further contended that Government had accorded sanction for construction of link road. It is also contended that Panchayat authorities have not pegmarked the land under acquisition so far in spite of repeated requests and hence further land acquisition steps could not be taken.

3. Secretary of the fifth respondent Panchayat had filed a counter affidavit contending that Section 4 (1) notification was published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette dated 1.3.2006 and a notification under Section 6 (2) of the Survey and Boundaries Act was published in Gazette dated 8.8.2006 for WP(C)No.10695/2007 3 demarcation and survey of the land under acquisition. It is contended that if petitioners are aggrieved by the notification issued under (1) of the Act, they ought to have filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act. It is also contended that the proposed acquisition is for the purpose of connecting two main PWD roads namely Oyoor - Kottarakara and Maruthampally - Ambalamkunnu road. It is highly beneficial to the public. It is contended that now to reach Kurisinmood Junction one has to start from RPS Junction reach LPS Kozhikode then Maruthampalli Junction and then to Kurisinmoodu Junction and the distance is more than 3 kms and if the link road is constructed the distance will be less than 500 metres. It is also contended that some of the land owners had expressed their willingness to surrender their land for the purpose of formation of the link road. In the meanwhile, some of the owners of the property proposed to be acquired filed O.S.No.115/2007 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara and obtained an injunction order. It is further contended that one Jacob Chacko who is the owner of property comprised in R.Sy.Nos.145/3 and 148/4 in Block 35 in Pooya

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top