ABDUL MAJEED SAHIB Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition has come up before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the question as to whether in a compensation claim under S.48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, withdrawal notification is necessary or withdrawal from the acquisition can be presumed in a case falling under S.11A of the Act.

(2.) Short facts necessary for decision of the issue referred are as follows: A notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", was published in 1988 for acquiring an extent of nearly 50 cents of property belonging to the petitioner. Gazette notification was dated 26-5-1988 and paper publications dated 10-6-1988 and 17-6-1988 issued. That was followed by a declaration under S.6 of the Act in June, 1988. The last date of the notification published in the pa per is dated 17-6-1988. The acquisition was for the Telecommunication Department, for the purpose of construction of a Telephone Exchange building at Pathanapuram. While the acquisition proceedings were in progress, there was an attempt to negotiable with the petitioner for the purchase of the property. Special Tahsildar, who was in charge of the acquisition, valued the property at Rs.11,70,000/- and requested the Telecommunications Department to deposit that amount. He did so pursuant to an undertaking given by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner. The undertaking given by the power of attorney holder is to the following effect:

(3.) As stated earlier, declaration under S.6 of the Act was published on 17-6-1988. S.11A enjoins the Collector to make an award under S.11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of the publication of declaration. It also states that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Since declaration under S.6 was dated 17-6-1988, the award should have been passed by the Collector on or before 16-6-1990. It is the admitted case that the Collector did not pass the award on or before 16-6-1990. Even after 16-6-1990, Collector was earnestly pursuing the acquisition proceedings to have negotiated settlement. That is clear from the communications sent by him to the Telecom Division Manager subsequent to 16-6-1990. When the petitioner came forward with an offer to handover possession of the property on getting the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Telecom District Manager entertained certain doubts. This is evident from his communication dated 29-5-1990, seen at page 483 of the files tended over to us by the learned Government Pleader. We take it worthwhile to read the same: