KANDENKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on February 9, 1996, in O. P. No. 5382/88 (reported in AIR 1996 Kerala 337).

(2.) The admitted position is that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act"), which is Pari materia with Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, was published on January 10, 1981. The petitioner had initially challenged the scheme in O. P. No. 2436/82 which was dismissed and was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 223/82, dated April 23, 1982. The petitioner filed another writ petition in the year 1993 and got the further proceedings stayed. The same has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. Thus this special leave.

(3.) It is contended for the petitioner that when a notification under Section 48 of the Act with-drawing the earlier notification in respect of some of the land was issued, the integrality of the notification stood disturbed and, therefore, the acquisition has become bad in law. In support thereof, Shri Sukumar, learned senior counsel, sought to place reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Kerala High Court which are inconsistent with each other. He states that as there is conflict of opinions the conflicts needs to be resolved. We find no force in the contention sinse the controversy has already been set at naught by this Court in Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1767 and Sp. Land Acquisition officer, Bombay v. M/s. Godrej and Boyce, AIR 1987 SC 2421. Therefore, merely because some of the lands which formed part of the same notification were denotified in exercise of the power under Selection 48 of the Act, the integrality of the notification for acquisition has not become bad in law.