RAMAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is to quash the land acquisition proceedings in L. A. No. 15 of 1965 of the 1st respondent, relating to acquisition of lands for the formation of a 50 feet wide road, connecting the St. John Pattom and Rampart Road. The S.3 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) was originally issued on 23 3 1962. Ex. P. 2 is a copy thereof, and it is seen from it that the urgency provisions of the Act were invoked the same day, and enquiry into the objections was dispensed with. An Erratum notification dated 27th March 1963 was issued deleting certain items from the first notification and adding certain others thereto. At that stage, O. P. No. 1102 of 1963 was filed in this Court by one of the persons affected, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. By order dated 10th July 1964, the writ petition was dismissed, as infructuous on representation made by the Government Pleader on behalf of the State, that the Government proposes to issue a fresh notification. id the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the fresh notification was issued on legal advice that it might not be proper to correct a notification under the Land Acquisition Act by an Erratum notification. A fresh notification dated 26 10 1955 followed under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962). Ex. P. 4 is a copy thereof. The same was published in the gazette on 14-12-1965. Ex. P. 5 is a copy of the declaration under S.6 of the Act and it is seen from the same that the urgency provisions had been invoked by the Collector by his proceedings dated 8 1 1966, and enquiry into the objections had been dispensed with.

(2.) Two grounds were relied on to quash the land acquisition proceedings. First that the invocation of the urgency provision was not justified, and second that the original notifications under the Central Act 1 of 1894, had not lapsed, as there was no withdrawal from the land acquisition proceedings and the fresh notification issued under the Kerala Act were not valid and proper.

(3.) In O. P. No. 935 of 1966 filed by another person affected, to quash these land acquisition proceedings, I held that the principle of the decision in Kunhammad Keyi v. The Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Tellichery ( 1965 KLT 1021 ) was not attracted to this case, and that the invocation of the urgency provisions was valid and proper. I stated my reasons thus: