MOIDEEN R S Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are challenging notification under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The land owned by the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the construction of an autorickshaw stand. According to the petitioners the Panchay at has no source of funds. The need projected is not a public purpose. Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides that Panchayat may provide landing places, halting places and cart stand (including stand for animals and vehicles of any description) and levy fees for their use. Construction of autorickshaw stand is a public purpose. It is also averred that the sixth respondent has forwarded a report to the fifth respondent stating that this land is not fit for constructing an autorickshaw stand. Whether the land proposed to be acquired is fit for starting an autorickshaw stand, etc. are matters to be considered by the requisitioning authority. It is pointed out that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 16-1-2006 whereas Section 6(1) declaration was issued only on 9-3-2007, after the expiry of one year from Section 4(1) notification and hence the entire proceedings lapsed. It is contended that so far as the area covered by erstwhile Malabar is concerned the provisions of the Central Act is not applicable and the land acquisition can be initiated only under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961.

(2.) Respondents 7 and 8 filed counter affidavits stating that the same was published in the newspaper on 19-1-2006 and also on 21-1-2006 and the same was published in the locality on 13-3-2006. It was averred that Section 6(1) declaration was issued on 7-3-2007 which is within one year from the date of last publication. It is trite law that when the Statute prescribes different modes of publication the time begins to run from the last publication. In this case Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 13-3-2006. Section 6(1) declaration was made on 7-3-2006. So there is no merit in the contention raised that the proceedings lapsed.

(3.) It is argued that the State cannot invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 so far as the erstwhile Malabar area is concerned. It is argued that the land acquisition is included in Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule. It is contended that when the State Legislature passed the Land Acquisition Act, 1961 assent of the President was obtained. So the provisions of That Act will prevail over the provisions of the Central Act so far as the erstwhile Malabar area is concerned. The very same question was considered in Kanthimathy Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1989 4 SCC 650 in which it was held that the provisions of Central Act will apply. It was held as follows: