A P SUNNY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner purchased 7 cents of land in the name of his wife from on Shri P.M. George, 4th Addl. Respondent by registered document No. 6982 dated 13.1.1994 registered at Sub Registry office at Mallappally. The said property is situated in the north of a petrol bunk which is facing the Kottayam - Mallappally Road. It is averred that Thandaper in the land revenue records was also in the name of 4th Addl. Respondent at the time of transfer as can be seen from Ext. P1 tax receipt issued on 4.10.1993. Petitioner is the owner of another 5.5 cents of land adjacent to the above property and he had constructed a substantially big house. Some officials came to measure the land in possession of the petitioner and on enquiry it was found that there was a proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act as can be seen from Ext. P2. Ext. P2 is a notice issued under S.9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. That was issued against Smt. Annamma George and Shri Mathew Eapen. Smt. Annamma George is the wife of Shri P.M. George who sold the property to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that what is covered under Ext. P2 is the property of Annamma George under Thandaper No. 5927 and Mathew Eapen. Thandaper No. 8250 and no land of P.M. George was sold to the petitioner. It was also submitted by the petitioner that wife of P. M. George already died and her son filed a writ petition OP No. 14316/93 and obtained stay as evidenced by Ext. P4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is clear that P. M. George's property was not acquired and therefore petitioner's property is also not acquired and in any event since that property was not mentioned in any of the notifications, land acquisition proceedings taken in respect of the land of the petitioner bearing Thandaper No. 5928 (new number 29/2632) of resurvey No. 269/11 of Mallappilly Village should be quashed. On the basis of allegations. I have called for the files. A statement was filed by the 2nd respondent. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Pathanamthitta. Impleading petition was filed by Shri P. M. George who sold the property and he was impleaded as Additional 4th respondent.

(2.) The records would show that there was a proposal for the acquisition of 15 cents of land from Sy. No. Original 388/8 (New No. 269/11) of Mallappally Village of Mallappally Taluk for the construction of Mallappally West Post Office building. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvalla furnished the necessary requisition for the acquisition of land through the District Collector, Pathanamthitta. Notification was published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 20.12.1990. Notification was also published in Janayugam daily dated 11.2.1991 and in Mangalam daily dated 7.3.1991. The file would also disclose that local publication of Form 4(a) was made on 27.3.1991. Form 4(a) notice was published in the Taluk office and Village office and it was published in the place by C. Krishnan, Chairman and in the presence of P. J. Thomas. Survey records available in form 7 also show that properties under Thandaper Nos. 5927 and 5920 were owned by Vattakkunnel Annamma George and was in possession of P.M. George. Since no objection was received, survey was conducted and survey records prepared and scrutinised by the Superintendent of survey and Land Records, Pathanamthitta. According to the scrutinised survey records, the area under acquisition is 5.95 Ares in Resurvey No. 269/13 of Mallappally Village (Old Sy. No. 368/8). Thereafter declaration under S.6 of the Act was published in Kerala Gazette and also in Malayala Manorama and Janayugam dailies. At the time when notification was given, survey records show that the property under acquisition was owned by Annamma George, wife of P. M. George, Maliyekkal House, Puramuttom. Present possession was shown under P. M. George, Maliyekkal Malayil House, Puramuttom, Addl. 4th respondent, in respect of Thandaper No. 5927/5928 and 8250 by Mathew Eapen and total area was 5.95 area. Notice under S.9(3) of the Act was given for passing award. The above notice was seen published and also received by Shri P. M. George, Addl. 4th respondent. Thereafter, he executed vakalath in favour of Abraham V. Alexander, Advocate, Pathanamthitta and sought for time on two postings. Final award was passed in respect of the same. So, after receiving notice of the award proceedings and after filing vakalath in the award proceedings in 1993, property was sold by the 4th Addl, respondent to the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that at the time when the acquisition proceedings were taken, the property was not transferred in the name of P. M. George and his son. In any event, name of P. M. George was shown as the person in possession of the land. Award notice was served on him and he participated and only he was aware of the land acquisition proceedings when the land was sold. In the above circumstances, Addl. 4th respondent's case that he was not aware of the acquisition proceedings cannot be accepted.

(3.) As far as petitioner is concerned, petitioner is a person who got the land even after the award was passed. It was held by the Supreme Court in Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others ( AIR 1996 SC 520 ) that when title of land is acquired by Government under S.4(1) and party purchasing land under acquisition long after notification under S.4(1) will not get any title of such land and the State is entitled to have possession free from all encumbrances. Since party challenging acquisition himself purchased the land long after acquisition, he cannot question the acquisition proceedings. He can claim only against his seller, here, 4th Addl. respondent. In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that even wrong mention of survey number in notice under S.9 will not cast any cloud on a valid notification under S.4(1). Here, S.4(1) notice was published in two newspapers. Notice under S.4(2) was published in the notice board of the Taluk office and was affixed in the land in question. Land was got surveyed. No objection was filed. S.6 declaration was published in the notice boards. Notice under S.9 was served on 4th addl. respondent. He filed vakalath. Survey number in the notification was not disputed. Award was passed. 4th Addl. respondent was aware of the proceedings. In any event, the land in question was purchased by the petitioner from the 4th Addl. respondent and 4th Addl. respondent was aware of the entire proceedings and petitioner purchased the land from the 4th Addl. respondent after the acquisition.