SAYED MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court mainly challenging Ext. P4 and Ext. P7. Ext. P4 is a declaration under S.6(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Ext. P7 is the notification under S.4(1) of the said Act, which preceded Ext. P4. The main contention urged as ground 'G' to the Original Petition is that "the whole acquisition proceedings have lapsed since no S.6 declaration was published within one year from S.4(1) publication under S.6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act" (Sic) What the petitioner attempts to submit is that the time gap between publication of S.4(1) notification and the publication of S.6(1) declaration is beyond one year and therefore the proceedings itself have elapsed and the respondents cannot continue the land acquisition proceedings. If that is so, I need not consider any other contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I shall examine that aspect.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the third respondent Special Tahsildar (LA), Trissur Municipalities, Trissur. It is averred therein as follows:

(3.) The Government Pleader contends, relying on the provisions in S.6(1) that what the law requires is only making of S.6 declaration within one year and not publication of the S.6 declaration. Proviso to S.6(1) with clause (ii) thereof reads as follows: