RAVINDRA MENON Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, residents of the Thripunithura Municipality have filed these writ petitions aggrieved by the proceedings for acquisition of their land for widening of the Kizhakkekotta Junction at Thripunithura. According to the petitioners, the notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('the Act' for short) is dated 09.04.2013. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act is dated 23.04.2014. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings have lapsed in view of the period of limitation stipulated by the 1st proviso to Section 6 of the Act. A further contention is raised that, since no award in respect of the petitioners' land was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before 01.01.2014, the proceedings cannot be continued under the old Act. According to Adv. Sri P. Sathisan who appears for the petitioners, the Honourable Supreme Court has in Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, 2007 3 SCC 470 held that, the limitation contained in Section 6 of the Act has to be construed strictly for the reason that the enactment is expropriatory in nature. Viewed in the above perspective, it is contended that the proceedings have lapsed. The counsel also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Dr. Alex Itticheria v. The Superintendenting Engineer dated 04.02.2014 in W.P. (C). No. 2675/2014 to contend that, it is the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act 30 of 2013' for short) that has to apply.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C). No. 27100/2014, producing Exts. R3(a) to R3(c) documents. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per Section 4(1) of the Act, the limitation stipulated by the first proviso to Section 6 has to be computed from the date of last publication of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said date according to the Government Pleader is 10.05.2013. Computed from the said date, the declaration under Section 6 having been published on 23.04.2014, it is contended that the proceedings are not hit by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) Heard. The question to be decided here is whether the proceedings have lapsed in view of the limitation stipulated by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference: