THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is covered by my judgment in Itten v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) K. LT 23 ). Pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Land acquisition Act, advance possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners was taken on 16-2-1985. Nothing happened thereafter. Even the amount due to be paid at the time of taking advance possession, has not been given to the petitioners. The award has also not been passed though the time for passing the award has since expired. It is in these circumstances, and since the petitioners were not being paid the compensation due to them, that they have come forward with this original petition for direction to the second respondent to complete the acquisition proceedings, to pass award and to pay the amounts due to them.

(2.) AS I stated earlier, it has been held in titan's case, that Government has no right to withdraw from the acquisition when once possession has been taken. When this is the position, it is equally not open to government to contend that the proceedings have lapsed by the operation of s. 11a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This will in effect be enabling the respondents to wriggle out of the proceedings for acquisition, despite their being disabled from withdrawing from the same. In other words, this will enable the respondents to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. It will also cause great hardship to the landowners who have already been deprived of their lands. This has to be relieved against. S. 11a is a provision intended for the benefit of the land owners, to relieve them from oppressive and long drawn out proceedings. There is no reason however why government should not be compelled to complete the proceedings for acquisition, when the landowners are prepared to have the same continued and completed. Government is therefore bound to complete the acquisition and pay the compensation due to the petitioners. The action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the proceedings and paying the compensation due to the petitioners is, therefore, not correct. Despite the lapse of time, the petitioners are willing to the continuance of the land acquisition proceedings and to be paid the value of the lands taken possession of from them.