KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. PUNNEN KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner i.e., the Karukachal Grama Panchayat. The 1st respondent (land owner) is represented by the learned counsel Sri.Jacob Abraham. The Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand makes submissions on behalf of the other respondents.

(2.) The Karukachal Grama Panchayat, who were the 4th respondent in the Writ Proceedings had filed the Writ Appeal No.783 of 2018, which was disposed of on 19.6.2018 upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the defective acquisition process on account of the failure of the acquisition authorities, to adhere to the time schedule specified for publication of the Section 6(1) notification, within the prescribed period of 1 year, after publication of the Section 4(1) notification, under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894. The learned Single Judge noted that the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the gazette on 17.6.2008 and the notification under Section 6(1) was then published in the gazette on 18.9.2009 but this was beyond the one year time limit from the first notification. Accordingly, it was declared that the publication of the Section 6(1) notification is hit by the proviso II, to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Judge while recording his finding on the delayed publication of Section 6(1) notification, rejected the contention that the relevant date for the Section 4(1) notification is 31.12.2008 when the notice under Section 4(1) was locally published. This contention was specifically rejected by the learned Judge by adverting to the fact that the Section 4(1) notification was published in the gazette on 17.6.2008.

(3.) While considering the Writ Appeal, the relevant dates were noted in a chart form in paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 19.6.2018 and these are the correct dates relevant for the acquisition process. But the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup points out that in the later paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the date of local publication was incorrectly noted as 31.12.2008. This the counsel points out is a typographical error. Such reflection of the incorrect date (31.12.2008) according to us, will have no bearing insofar as the publication of the Section 6(1) notice under Proviso II to Section 6(1) and therefore, the final conclusion on the belated publication of Section 6(1) notice, need not be disturbed. But to keep the record correct, the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notice adverted to in paragraph 5 of the judgment in the Writ Appeal No.783/2018 should be correctly read as 17.6.2008 and not as 31.12.2008.