The petitioners, residents of the Thripunithura Municipality have filed these writ petitions aggrieved by the proceedings for acquisition of their land for widening of the Kizhakkekotta Junction at Thripunithura. According to the petitioners, the notice under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('the Act' for short) is dated 09.04.2013. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act is dated 23.04.2014. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings have lapsed in view of the period of limitation stipulated by the 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act. A further contention is raised that, since no award in respect of the petitioners' land was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before 01.01.2014, the proceedings cannot be continued under the old Act. According to Adv.Sri.P.Sathisan who appears for the petitioners, the Honourable Supreme Court has in Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another [2007 (3) SCC 470] held that, the limitation contained in Section 6 of the Act has to be construed strictly for the reason that the enactment is expropriatory in nature. Viewed in the above perspective, it is contended that the proceedings have lapsed. The counsel also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Dr.Alex Itticheria v. The Superintendenting Engineer dated 04.02.2014 in W.P (C).No.2675/2014 to contend that, it is the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act 30 of 2013' for short) that has to apply.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C).No.27100/2014, producing Exts.R3(a) to R3(c) documents. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per Section 4(1) of the Act, the limitation stipulated by the first proviso to Section 6 has to be computed from the date of last publication of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said date according to the Government Pleader is 10.05.2013. Computed from the said date, the declaration under Section 6 having been published on 23.04.2014, it is contended that the proceedings are not hit by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act.
3. Heard. The question to be decided here is whether the proceedings have lapsed in view of the limitation stipulated by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference :
“Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government or the Board of Revenue is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders or of the Secretary of the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notifications under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)-
(i) published after the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:
Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.”
4. According to the first proviso, with respect to notifications published after 1984, the period of limitation prescribed is one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4(1) of the Act reads as follows :
“Publication of Preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or to the Board of Revenue or to the collector that land in any locality in the State of Kerala or within the jurisdiction of the collector is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification.”
(Emphasis supplied) As per the above provision, a notification has to be published in the Official Gazette, in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality of which one shall be in the regional language and, public notice of the substance of such notification has to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The provision makes it clear that, it is the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice that has to be referred to as the date of publication of the notification. Therefore, the wordings of the above provision makes it clear beyond any doubt that, it is the last date of publication and the giving of public notice that has to be taken as the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1).
5. In these cases, Ext.P1 is a copy of the notification under Section 4(1) published in the Desabhimani newspaper. The said notification is dated 09.04.2013. Ext.R3(a) is the notification published in the gazette. Ext.R3(b) is the notification published under Rule 7(1) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala Rules, 1990) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). Ext.R3(b) is seen to have been published at various places in the locality including the East Fort Junction. At page 5 of Ext.R3(b) there is an endorsement by the Office Attendant that, the notice was so affixed. The date of such endorsement is 10.05.2013. According to the learned Government Pleader, the date of last publication of the notice under Section 4(1) has therefore to be taken as 10.05.2013.
6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that, even in Ext.R3(b), it has been specifically stipulated that objections under Section 5 A of the Act would have to be preferred on or before 22.5.2013, being the date on which the period of 30 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 4(1) would expire. Having stipulated so in Ext.R3(b), it is not open to the authorities to put forward a contention on the basis of the endorsement of the Office Attendant in Ext.R3(b) that the date of last publication was 10.05.2013. It is contended that, if the said date is accepted, that would give room for easy manipulation of the dates, in order to get over the period of limitation stipulated by Section 6 of the Act.
7. In these cases, the date of Ext.R3(b) is 22.04.2013. Computed from the said date, the Section 6 declaration has been published two days after the date on which the one year period expired. However, calculated from 10.05.2013, which is the date of the endorsement seen in Ext.R3(b), Ext.R3(c) declaration is within the period of limitation. As already noticed above, Section 4(1) stipulates various modes of publication of notice under the said provision. One of the modes stipulated is by giving public notice thereof in the locality. Ext.R3(b) is the copy of the notice published in the locality. Therefore, Ext.R3(b) has been issued in terms of the stipulation contained in Section 4(1). The endorsement therein regarding publication shows that, the notice was given on 10.05.2013. Absolutely no material or evidence has been placed before me to doubt the veracity of the endorsement contained in Ext.R3(b). Though it is true that, there is chance of such endorsements being manipulated, there is nothing in Ext.R3(b) to doubt its correctness. Ext.R3(b) contains the signatures of various persons endorsing the fact that, land acquisition notice had been published. Though an objection is taken by pointing out that, one of the signatories is shown to be from Calicut and the other from Udayamperoor, places outside the locality, I notice that there are other signatures of persons from Thripunithura itself and other nearby places. As already noticed above, I do not find any reason to doubt the correctness of Ext.R3(b). I have already found that computed from 10.05.2013, the declaration under Section 6 published on 24.04.2014, is within time. Therefore, the contention that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed, is rejected.
8. The other contention is that, since Act 30 of 2013 has come into force on 01.01.2014, the proceedings under the old Act have lapsed. The effect of the new Act is only with respect to the manner in which the compensation is to be computed and the measures for rehabilitation to be adopted. Since no award is passed, the learned Government Pleader assures that, further proceedings in respect of the acquisition shall be continued only under Act 30 of 2013. The said submission is recorded.
In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV