ABDULLA KUTTY HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash certain proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which may be referred to as the Act. The first point urged before me was, that Government did not form an opinion as to the applicability of S.17(1) or S.17(2) of the Act to the case, before the enquiry under S.5-A was dispensed with, in exercise of the power under S.17 (4) of the Act. The material part of the order only reads:

(2.) The second point was, that whereas the declaration under S.6 of the Act could be made only after the publication of the notification under S.4, as it happened, both were made on November 3, 1958, and were published on November 25, 1958. Though here again, the point is not as specific as it could be, ground 6 of the petition may be held to cover it. The latter part of S.17(4) of the Act provides that,

(3.) The learned counsel argued, that in the case cited, the Court did not notice the distinction between the making of the declaration and its publication-True, S.17(4) employs the word 'made' in the expression "a declaration may be made" and S.6 refers to making and publication. In my opinion, the distinction cannot be considered to be vital, the declaration being conclusive only upon the publication thereof. In the context in which the word 'made' is employed in S.17(4), it seems to me, that it must be interpreted so as to include the publication of the declaration also. In any view, I am not satisfied, that the above provision in S.17(4) of the Act is mandatory. I therefore come to the conclusion, that the principle of the Mysore decision applies, and if so, it must follow, that non compliance with the latter part of S.17(4) is only an irregularity, on the strength of which the proceedings could not be quashed.