GEEVARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner owns a few acres of land in Sy. No. 154 of Mekkapala Kara, Vengoor East Village , kunnathunad Taluk. THE adjoining property on the eastern side, also in Sy. No. 154, belongs to his brother. In the year 1980, the petitioner came to know about a proposal to open up a "field channel" through the above items of properties, as part of the distribution system of the Periyar Valley irrigation Project. According to the petitioner, such a channel was totally unnecessary for irrigation purposes; the real idea of the authorities was to put up a wide bund fit for vehicular traffic, in order to benefit some influential persons on the eastern side. THE proposal was only an excuse for raising such a bund. He therefore came to this Court with O. P. No. 2793/1980, complaining that S. 12 and 13 of the Irrigation Act were not being complied with. THE O. P. was however dismissed, on the view that the aforesaid provisions were not intended to protect owners whose lands were likely to be acquired. Safeguards and protections in the matter of land acquisition were to be found in the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it was suggested; and it was indicated that the petitioner could wait till proceedings were initiated under that Act.

(2.) THE petitioner was then expecting to get a notice under S. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, read with R. 3 of the Land Acquisition rules, if the authorities were intending to proceed with the acquisition. But no such notice was served on him. On 8-12-1982, however, the Land Acquisition officer issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to surrender 16. 45 acres of land. THE notice made reference to notifications made in two newspapers in September, 1982, in connection with the acquisition. On enquiries thereafter, the petitioner came to learn that "some order" had been passed by the District Collector under S. 19 (4) of the Act.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, I should say that it is difficult to believe the petitioner's case that he came to know about the acquisition proceedings only when Ext. P1 dated 8-12-1982 was served on him. As already seen, he was on the look-out from the very beginning i. e. even before initiation of any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. He had come to this Court in 1980 complaining against a possible acquisition of his land. S. (3)notification was published both in the Mathrubhumi and the Malayala Manorama in january, 1982. It cannot be assumed that the petitioner was keeping himself blissfully ignorant of this development. As disclosed by the counter-affidavit, all the other land owners concerned had surrendered possession of their lands by August, 1982. Despite the newspaper publications, and despite the surrender of land by neighbouring owners, if the petitioner claims to have remained ignorant of all such proceedings, I think the safer course is to believe the case of the respondents that notice under Rule (3) was attempted to be served on him, and was served by affixture on 5-2-1982.