MOIDEEN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are residing in R. S. No. 94/2 of Beypore Village, Kozhikode Taluk. They along with about 13 other families are owners of small bits of land in that survey number, the total extent of which comes to 1.22 acres. In the year 1969 a notification was issued under S.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, (the Act) proposing to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of buildings for the Government School of Beypore. Pursuant to the notification under S.3 of the Act the Land Acquisition Officer, Kozhikode, issued notices to the various persons in occupation of the land under R.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules in September 1969. A true copy of this notice is Ext. P1. The petitioners objected to the proposal for acquisition. However, the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, issued a declaration in the Kerala Gazette under S.6 of the Act. Ext. P2 is a copy of that declaration dated 8-6-1970 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 29-9-1970. Thereafter, to the petitioners' knowledge, nothing happened. However, on 26-9-1979 the 1st respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioners to file statements of their claim before him under S.9(3) and 10 of the Act. A true copy of this notice is Ext. P3. Having known about the move to continue the proceedings for acquisition, the petitioners made representations even to the District Collector and the Chief Minister. Ext. P4 is a true copy of the representation submitted to the Chief Minister. The petitioners by way of abundant caution had also submitted a statement of claims before the 1st respondent, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kozhikode.

(2.) The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is that the long delay between the declaration under S.6 of the Act in 1970 and the issue of notice under S.9(3) and 10 after nine years has seriously prejudiced the petitioners, and therefore further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 notice should be quashed.

(3.) Sri. B. Moosakutty, the Government Pleader appearing for the State, submitted that there is no provision in the Act limiting the period within which the acquisition proceedings have to be completed once the declaration under S.6 of the Act is published. According to him, it must be presumed that the proceedings are alive once they are initiated for acquisition of land till they end or are withdrawn. He would submit that there could be no hard and fast rule as to the time within which the proceedings are to be completed, as in each case the time lag for that purpose would depend upon the facts thereof. In this case, he would add, there was no deliberate laches on the part of the Government or the Land Acquisition Officer. He has also a further contention that if at all the petitioners feel aggrieved, the proper remedy available to them is to institute a suit in the civil court without taking resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.