PIERCE LESLIE INDIA LTD Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a public limited company. It carries on the business of curing coffee etc. For the said business, it has it factory in Sy No. 143/1 and 143/2 of Cheruvannur Village, Cheruvannur Nallalam Panchayat at Kozhikode District. The factory building, curing and garbling yard, workers' rest rooms, canteen and others are all situate therein. Proceedings were initiated for the acquisition of a portion of the land in survey No. 143/2 for constructing staff quarters and office accommodation for Telephone Department. The notification under S 3(1) of the Kerala Lard Acquisition Act was promulgated as Ext. P2 dated 21st March 1983 Notice under S.9(3) of the Act (Ext. P6) is dated 28-6-1985, which was followed up by Ext. P7, gazette publication dated 11-9-1985. In this Original Petition, the challenge is against Exts. P2, P6 and P7.

(2.) The only ground on which the acquisition proceedings are assailed is the non specification of the land in Exts. P2, P6 and P7. It is stated that in R.S. No. 153/2, petitioner's property is being acquired. But in Ext P2, which portion of the said survey number is going to be acquired is not exactly specified. The same vagueness continued in Exts. P6 and P7. So the acquisition is void. There is no force in this plea. Ext. P2 is the notification under S.3 of the Land Acquisition Act. All that S.3(1) of the Act contemplates is the promulgation of a notification to the effect that land in any locality within the State of Kerala is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose. After the promulgation of the said notification, it will be lawful to any officer authorised by the government or the Collector or any government servant under him to enter upon any property, survey the land, mark out the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired and do such other things as is specified in S.3(1) of the Act. It is thereafter the filing of objections under S.5 takes place. On the basis of the report made by the Collector under S.5(2), if the Board of Revenue or the Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration to that effect will be made. It is on the basis of this declaration, promulgated under S.6, further proceedings under S.9 and subsequent proceedings follow. All that is necessary at the stage when the notification under S.3 is promulgated, is to specify "that lard" in any locality within the State is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. That will enable the officers of the Government to enter upon the land, survey the same and set out the boundaries etc. It is only when the declaration is promulgated under S.6 of the Act, there is a duty cast on the authorities to specify that any "particular land" is needed for the public purpose. In this case, Ext. P2, notification under S.3(1) of the Act stated that 0. 4047 hectares of land in R. S. No. 143/2 is needed for the public purpose. It is thereafter the officers of the Department surveyed the land and demarcated and specified the particular portion that was proposed to be acquired in the said survey cumber. A separate sub division was given for the land proposed to be acquired as R. S. No. 143/4. On this basis, a declaration under S.6 followed and Ext. P6 notification under S.9(3) read with S.10 of the Act was issued. Ext. P7 also contained the same details as in Ext. P6. Exts. P6 and P7 specified the "particular land" that was proposed to be acquired. It is true that in Ext. P2, the notification issued under S.3(1) of the Act, the particular land proposed to be acquired was not exactly specified. Bat that is not contemplated by S.3(1) of the Act. It is only in the declaration under S.6(1) of the Act, ''the particular land" proposed to be acquired should be specified. There is no case that it is not specified in the declaration promulgated under S.6(1) of the Act which was followed in Exts. P6 and P7. The plea of the petitioner that particulars of land to be acquired are not specified and is uncertain is without force. As observed in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mathews Mar Ivanios, ( 1975 KLT 584 ) page 586: