ABDUL MAJEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues raised in these writ petitions are connected. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. WP(C) No. 5649/12 is treated as the leading case.

(2.) PETITIONERS in WP(C) No. 5649/12 challenge the acquisition of 0.9714 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.103/1 of Vatanapilly Village in Chavakkad Taluk. The purpose for which the land is notified for acquisition is for implementing the tsunami rehabilitation project. Ext.P1 is the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. That notification was subsequently cancelled by Ext.P3 dated 14/11/2008. On 14/11/2008 itself, Ext.P4 notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) as well. It appears that Ext.P4 notification was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2304/09 and that case was heard by this Court along with similar other writ petitions. By Ext.P5 judgment rendered by a Division Bench on 27th of May, 2009, upholding the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(4), the writ petition was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Apex Court and Exts.P6 and P7 are the interim orders that were passed. When the appeal along with connected matters came up for orders before the Court on 28/3/11, on behalf of the State, it was submitted that the petitioners will be given notice under Section 5(A) and that the procedure laid down in the Act will thereafter be adopted by the respondents. Recording that submission, the appeals were disposed of by Ext.P8 order.

(3.) FOUR contentions are urged by the learned counsel. One is that when following Ext.P8 order of the Apex Court, when procedure under Section 5(A) is to be compiled with, objections should be considered by the Collector and that in this case objections were considered and Ext.P13 order was passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Therefore, according to the counsel, there is violation of Section 5(A). The second contention raised is that, in the counter affidavit dated 12th March, 2012 filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the respondents, reference is made to publication of declaration under Section 6 only in the official gazette. Counsel contended that therefore the other modes of publication requiring publication of the notification in newspaper is not complied with. It was also contended by the learned counsel that having undertaken before the Apex Court, requirements of Section 5A will be complied with, after completing the enquiry, the respondents should have completed the entire procedure as laid down in the Act afresh. This according to the learned counsel was not complied with.