NOORJAHAN PODIKANNU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner owns 70.81 square metres of property situated in Resurvey No. 183/149 of Kollam East Village. A part of the above mentioned property, i. e. about 27 square-metres had been notified by the State Government for acquisition for public purpose as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. After considering the objections declaration was published under S.6(2) of the Act on 23-6-1995 in the official gazette and on 15-7-1995 in the Deshabhimani Daily. Ext. P1 is copy of the declaration published in Deshabhimani Daily. It is alleged by the petitioner that petitioner's that part of the property is very valuable and no award was passed within the time required under S.11A of the Act. After expiry of the time on 12-9-1997 award was passed and petitioner was issued notice of award, Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, the above award was passed after the statutory time limit prescribed under S.11A and therefore, the entire proceedings have lapsed. Petitioner filed Ext. P4 representation for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. It is true that if there is delay of more than two years from the last date of publication of the declaration under S.6 and passing of the award the proceedings will lapse, as held by the Supreme Court in Abdul Majeed Sahib and another v. District Collector and others ( 1997 (1) SCC 297 ) and in L. N. Venkatesan v. State of T. N. and others ( 1997 (5) SCC 309 ).

(2.) It is contended by learned Government Pleader that award was passed in time. The last declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published at the site on 19-9-1995 and award was passed on 12-9-1997 which is well within the time limit prescribed under S.11A of the Act. S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:

(3.) Ext.R3(a) was produced to show that declaration was published in the Gazette on 23-6-1995 and local authorities were directed to publish the declaration in the notice board and to return the published copy. Ext. R3(b) shows that it was published on 19-9-1995. The Chairman has signed the same on 19-9-1995. The Supreme Court in Ajay Krishnan Shinghal v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 2677 ) held that endorsement by peon that he affixed copy of the notification at conspicuous place in the locality is enough and there is a presumption under S.114(e) of the Evidence Act.