K N APPU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash Section 3 (1) Notification dated 29th July 1967 issued under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (Ext. P-3) and the Section 6 declaration dated 26th April 1969 (Ext. P-6), issued in respect of one acre and 19 cents in Sy. No. 457/1 of Ollukkara Village, belonging jointly to the petitioner and his mother and sisters.

(2.) TWO main grounds are urged to quash the notification and the decalaration, namely, first that the Section 5, enquiry has not been conducted in the manner provided by the statute and the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard on the objections; and second that the acquisition was not really for a public purpose.

(3.) AS far as the first of these objections is concerned. Section 5 (3) of the Act requires the Collector to publish a notification in the gazette and also cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at various places in the locality. Section 5 (1) enables any person interested in the land acquired to object to the acquisition of the land within thirty days of the issue of the notification. Section 5 (2) enjoins the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by Counsel. The Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1963 have been framed under the Act. Rule 5 (b) states that if objections are received within time, the Collector shall fix the date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector. The form in which the notice is to be issued has been prescribed as Form IV (B ). The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition that after preferring Ext. P2 objections he did not receive any notice of enquiry enjoined by Section 5 of the Act, nor was he heard in support of the objections. To this, the answer made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit is in very vague and general terms, namely, that the Section 5 notice was served on all interested parties by registered Post and the enquiry was conducted by the tahsildar on 26-2-1967 (the date 26-2-1967 is an obvious mistake, and the learned Government Pleader who appeared stated at the hearing that the correct date was 26-10-1967 ). The learned Government Pleader stated with reference to the files that he was unable to say that notice of the enquiry on the objections had actually been served on the petitioner. This one ground is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings.