GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition, the proceedings for acquiring the property of the petitioners are challenged. The petitioners would say that petitioners 1 and 2 have property in Sy. No. 2198 and the 3rd petitioner owns property in Sy. No. 1801 of Pattom Village, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation in the petition is that a detailed town planning scheme for Plamood area, Thiruvananthapuram, for widening the National Highway 47 from Pattom to P.M.G. Junction was submitted before the Government of Kerala on 5.8.1991 by the 4th respondent Chief Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram, which was approved by the State Government. The petitioners would say that on the influence of the 9th respondent from whom also the property is proposed to be acquired now certain alterations in the road alignment is proposed to be made so that only a small portion of his property would be acquired. Ext. P3 is a notice published by the 3rd respondent, Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority, under S.13 of the Town Planning Act. The definite case of the petitioners is that if it is necessary to vary the town planning scheme, it could be done only by a subsequent scheme published and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of S.13 of the Town Planning Act.

(2.) On 19.8.1998, a notification under S.4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, here in after referred to as 'the Act', was published in a news paper. Ext. P4 is the Kerala Kaumudi News Paper in which the above notification was published. The land acquisition proceedings are sought to be quashed by saying that S.6 declaration was not made within one year of the publication of the notification under S.4(1) of the Act. According to the petitioners, even though the notification under S.4(1) was on 19.8.1998, declaration under S.6 was made only on 24.8.1999. There is also a case for the petitioners that for the purpose of S.17(4) of the Act, the "appropriate government" is the Central Government and since there is no specific direction from the Central Government under S.17(4) of the Act, the emergency provision in relation to the acquisition of land cannot be invoked by the State Government. The acquisition being for widening the National Highway the acquisition is for the purpose of the Union and that is why the petitioners would say that the "appropriate government" being the Central Government, specific direction from the Central Government under S.17(4) of the Act is necessary.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, it is stated that notification under S.4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 29.7.1998 and that it was published in Kerala Kaumudi and Deshabhimani dailies dated 19.8.1998. It is also stated that notification under S.4(1) was published in the locality on 20.8.1998. According to the 7th respondent declaration under S.6 was published in the Kerala Gazette on 18.8.1999 and the same was published in the Kerala Kaumudi and Deshabhimani dailies on 24.8.1999.