TAHARALI ABDU HUSSAIN BARBHAYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings evidenced by Exts. P1 to P4 in so far as it relates to the acquisition of 0.0440 hectare of land in T. S. No. 89/181 of Nellicode Village. Kozhikode Taluk, belonging to him, A notification under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated 15-7-1969. A notice under Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition Rules was served on the petitionar on 15-8-1969. Ext P1 is a copy of the no-tice served on him. According to the petitioner, he filed objections to the proposal for acquisition as contained in Ext. P. 1 notice.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 however submits that no object-tion to the proposal had been filed by the petitioner. There was an enquiry under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act on the objections received by the Land Acquisition Officer from other persons who were interested in the land included in the notification. The total extent of Land notified is 79.3 cents. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 27-10-1970. A notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act was served on the petitioner for the award enquiry to be held on 22-1-1973. Ext. P2 is a copy of this notice. It is submitted that the petitioner filed objections even at the stage of Ext. p2 notice. Nothing further happened until Ext. P3 notice under Section 9 (3) was issued on 22-4-1980 for an award enquiry to be held on 21-5-1980. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31-71980 and Ext. P4 is a copy of the award.

(3.) There is a long delay in passing the award after the declaration under Section 6 was published in the gazette on 27-10-1970. The learned Government Pleader points out that the delay was due to the fact that the Corporation of Calicut on whose behalf the acquisition proceedings were taken was not able to deposit the cost of acquisition of the land involved in these proceedings as required by the Government. The Cor-poration apparently had no funds and did not therefore deposit the amount. Long afterwards it would appear that the Corporation found funds to deposit the cost of acquisition and shortly afterwards Ext. P3 notice was issued on 22-4-1980 for an award enquiry to be held on 21-5-1980. The question is whether the acquisition proceedings in the present case is vitiated for the long delay after the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette.