PAULOSE VARGHESE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point raised in this writ petition in the context of second proviso to Art.31 -A of the Constitution of India,is regarding the constitutional validity of S.23(1)'firstly 'of the Land Acquisition Act,1894(as extended to the State of Kerala in 1984)which prescribes that market value of the property as on the date of S.4(1)notification is to be paid.The contention is that expropriation of the property takes place only on the date of taking of 'possession 'of the property and,therefore,if the statute does not provide for payment of market value as on the date of taking of possession,it must be treated as ultravires of the second proviso to Art.31 -A of the Constitution of India,insofar as lands which are within the ceiling area of the owner who is personally cultivating the said property are concerned.On the same analogy,the corresponding provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act,1961 are also sought to be declared as ultra vires.It is the contention that the Land Acquisition Act,1894 is extended to Kerala State only in 1984 and,therefore,S.23(1)firstly of the said Act(insofar as Kerala is concerned)and the Kerala Land Acquisition Act,1961 are not existing laws as on 26th January 1950 and cannot have the protection of Art.31(2)of the Constitution of India.One other contention raised relates to the interpretation and effect of the judgment in writ petition,O.P.4393 of 1979 dated 2nd December 1981.On the main point of vires of the provisions,the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Singareni Colleries v.V.S.Murthy 1984(1)ALT 108 decided by Madhava Reddy,C.J.( as he then was)and Lakshmana Rao,J.and of the Delhi High Court in Kundan Lal v.Union of India AIR 1988 Delhi 63 decided by Yogeshwar Dayal,J,( as he then was)and Kochhar,J.are against the contention of the petitioners.Learned counsel,however,wants to contend that the said decisions are not correct.

(2.) THE following are the facts:The eight petitioners in the writ petition are partners of a partnership firm 'whose 'lands of an extent of 8 acres 79 cents have been acquired for the Periyar Valley Irrigation Project by the issuance of a notification on 18th July 1978 under S.3(1)of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act,1961(hereinafter called the 'Kerala Act ').Emergency provisions under S.19(14)of the Kerala Act were invoked dispensing inquiry under S.5 of that Act.S.6 declaration was issued on 30th April 1979.M.P.Varghese who,it is admitted,is one of the petitioners in the present writ petition,filed O.P.4393 of 1979 -F questioning the exercise of emergency powers under S.19(4 ).Dr.Kochu Thommen,J.( as he then was ),allowed the said writ petition on 2nd December 1981 as per Ext.P -2 judgment quashing the S.6 declaration and directing a 'hearing in the inquiry under S.5 of the Kerala Act.Here,one of the points to be noted is that by 2nc! December 1981 when the O.P.was disposed of,the S.3(1)notification stood statutorily 'cancelled 'because of the provisions of S.6(3)of the Kerala Act which reads as follows:

(3.) ON 24th September 1984,the Land Acquisition Act,1894 stood territorially extended to the State of Kerala.Thereafter,the Award was passed on 31st May 1986.O.P.5532 of 1982 was dismissed on 25th September 1986.Possession of the property was taken on 21st October 1986.There is a reference to the Civil Court under S.18 and is now pending.The petitioners have filed a claim statement therein as per Ext.P -4,an Advocate Commissioner submitted a report as per Ext.P -5 and a Valuation Report,Ext.P -6 on 18th January 1988.