High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; entire acquisition p...
Punnan Kurian v. State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 19575 of 2010 (V)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2017-08-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- The court holds that the 6(1) notification was published outside the mandatory period and the entire acquisition proceedings are void. It directs that if the Panchayath is willing to compensate under the 2013 Act, they must deposit within two months; otherwise the land should be restored to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with no costs.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of; entire acquisition proceedings declared null and void; if Panchayath agrees to compensate under 2013 Act, deposit within two months; else restoration of land to petitioner; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Punnan Kurian
Respondents
- State of Kerala, represented by the Land Revenue Commissioner, Secretariat, Trivandrum
- District Collector, Kottayam
- The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) General, Kottayam
- Karukachal Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary, Karukachal, Kottayam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Jacob Abraham
- • Sm t. Kochumol Koduvath
Counsels for Respondents
- • Government Pleader SMT. Princy Xavier
- • Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty
Case Synopsis & Summary
The Kerala High Court, in a Writ Petition (Civil) filed by Punnan Kurian, challenges land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of establishing a taxi stand by Karukachal Grama Panchayath. The judgment maps the sequence of notifications: a 4(1) notification published on 17.6.2008 (gazette/publications dated 15.7.2008 and 16.7.2008), followed by 4(2) survey (08/08/2008), 5A enquiry (19.9.2008), and a 6(1) notification published on 18.9.2009. The award was dated 17.5.2010 and possession took place on 16.5.2013. The petitioner argues that 6(1) publication occurred after one year from the 4(1) notification, rendering the proceedings void, since the last date for publication should be measured from the 4(1) gazette and newspaper notices; the publication in the locality on 31.12.2008 is cited by respondents as the relevant date, suggesting validity. The court scrutinizes the requirement of simultaneous publication under Section 4(1) and notes that while simultaneous publication is not mandatory, there must not be a large gap that would vitiate bona fides. It emphasizes that steps under 4(2) and the 5A hearing occurred prior to or alongside publication, but ultimately holds that the 6(1) publication was outside the statutory period, rendering the entire acquisition null and void. The court leaves a remedial option: if Panchayath agrees to compensate under the 2013 Act, they may deposit within two months; otherwise the land should be restored to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of with no costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 6(1)(ii) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Bona fides in land acquisition proceedings
- Public interest vs private interest in land acquisition
- Noncompliance with mandatory statutory requirements can render acquisition void
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the 6(1) notification was published after the expiry of one year from the publication of the 4(1) notification. Although Section 4(1) contemplates notices in gazette, newspaper and locality, there is no requirement of simultaneous publication; however, a large gap undermines bona fides. Since 4(2) steps and 5A hearing occurred well before or during publication, and the locality publication on 31.12.2008 is contested, the 6(1) notification cannot be sustained; thus, the entire acquisition proceedings are void. As a remedy, if the Panchayath agrees to compensate under the 2013 Act, they may deposit compensation within two months; otherwise restoration of the land to the petitioner is due.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that publication under 6(1) should be measured from the last 4(1) publication, not the gazette/publication date; the last locality publication on 31.12.2008 should make the 6(1) notice timely, and not invalidate proceedings. They rely on established jurisprudence that 4(1) notices need not be simultaneous and that steps under 4(2) and 5A preceded the 6(1) notification. They emphasize that acquisition was initiated and proceedings completed, with the taxi stand part of public interest.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deepak Pahwa and Others | 1984 (4) SCC 308 | Positive | Used to support that simultaneous publication under 4(1) is not strictly required; however, there should not be an excessive gap that negates bona fides. |
| Greater Cochin Development Authority v. Victoria Xavier | 2001 (1) KLT 830 | Distinguished | Cited by counsel to argue that post-award challenges may be barred, but court distinguishes this ruling in light of other authorities and maintains petition. |
| Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana and Others | [(2012) 9 SCC 503] | Positive | Court relies on this ruling to affirm that a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings can be maintainable even after award, supporting petition’s maintainability. |
| Kulsum R. Nadiadwala | [(2012) 6 SCC 348] | Positive | Used to emphasize that noncompliance with mandatory requirements can render the entire acquisition null and void. |
| Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another | [(1997) 1 SCC 134] | Mentioned Only | Cited to discuss weighing public interest against private rights; not adopted as a controlling rule in this context. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Punnan Kurian v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
**MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/23RD SRAVANA, 1939**
**WP(C).No. 19575 of 2010 (V) ----------------------------**
## **PETITIONER:**
## **-----------**
**PUNNAN KURIAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE MR.P.K.KURAIN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, EAST HILL PO,KOZHIKODE.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.**
**2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.**
**3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) GENERAL, KOTTAYAM.**
**4. KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM.**
**R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.8.2017, THE COURT ON 14.8.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No. 19575 of 2010 (V)**
## **----------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS:**
## **-------------------**
|**EXHIBIT**|**P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE**|
|---|---|---|
|||**DESHABIMANI DAILY DATED 15.7.2008 BY THE 3RD**|
|||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.7.2008 ISSUED BY**|
|||**THE SURVEYOR TO MARY KURIEN.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 3.9.2008 FILED BY**|
|||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD**|
|||**RESPONDENT IN THE DESHABIMANY DAILY DATED**|
|||**10.10.2009.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.1.2010**|
|||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE- DATED 30.4.2010 ISSUED TO**|
|||**THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY**|
|||**MARY KURIAN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.9.2008 BEARING**|
|||**NUMBER B-1 374/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO**|
|||**V.O.KARUKACHAL.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.1.2009 BEARING**|
|||**NUMBER B-1 374/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO**|
|||**V.O. KARUKACHAL.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.12.2008**|
|||**BEARING NUMBER 302/2008 ISSUED BY THE**|
|||**V.O.KARUKACHAL TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DATED**|
|||**2.8.2008 AND BEARING NUMBER B-1 374/2008 TO THE**|
|||**PETITIONER.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P12**|**TRUE COPY OF 3RD RESPONDENT'S NOTICE TO MARY KURIAN**|
|||**DATED 26.8.2008 BEARING NUMBER B1-374/2008.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 5.5.2009 PREPARED BY**|
|||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 17.5.2010 BEARING**|
|||**NO.N/2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.5.2013 BEARING**|
|||**NUMBER B1.1489/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO**|
|||**THE PETITIONER.**|
|**EXHIBIT**|**P16**|**REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD**|
|||**RESPONDENT DATED 13.5.2013.**|
## **WP(C).No. 19575 of 2010 (V)**
## **----------------------------**
**EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.6.2009 AND BEARING NUMBER L.R (C3) 21001/09 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.7.13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE TREASURY, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.6.2000 SENT BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ONE DISPATCHED ON 7.7.2010 BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL . EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.10.2010 BEARING NUMBER A2.1259/10 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF SMT.A.NIRMALAKUMARI'S REPRESENTATION DATED 25.11.2009 MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S PROCEEDING DATED 14.12.2009 BEARING NUMBER B1-1489/09.**
**RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: -------------------EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION DATED 19.9.2009. EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.8.2016 BEARING NO.B4.1489/14 ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE THAHASILDAR, CHANGANASSERY AND LAND ACQUISITION CHEQUE MEMORANDUM. EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF 4(1) NOTIFICATION IN THE LOCALITY.**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**PA TO JUDGE**
**bng**
## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.**
_**********************************************************************_
## W.P.(C) No.19575 of 2010
_**********************************************************************_
Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2017
## JUDGMENT
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, the 'Act') was published after the period of one year of the publications of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is appropriate to refer various dates involved in the matter in a tabular form.
|Notification|Date|gazette|
|---|---|---|
|4(1)notification|17.6.2008|-do-|
||15.7.2008|Deshabimani daily|
||16.7.2008|Deepika daily|
||31.12.2008|local|
|4(2)Survey|08/08/08||
|5A Enquiry|19.9.2008||
|6(1)Notification|18.9.2009|gazette|
||10/10/09|Deshabimani daily|
|||Deepika daily|
|Date of Award|17.5.2010||
|Date ofpossession|16.5.2013||
|Date of filingW.P(C)|22.6.2010||
2. The petitioner's case is that the land was acquired for the
public purpose of establishing a taxi stand by the fourth respondent, Karukachal Grama Panchayath. The petitioner’s case
W.P.(C) No.19575 of 2010 2
is that the notification issued under Section 6(1) after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of 4(1) notification. 4(1) notification contemplates three types of notifications vis-a-vis gazette, newspaper and notification in the convenient place of the locality. If the date of notification in the newspaper and gazette is reckoned, there cannot be any dispute to hold that the publication of notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was barred as it was published only on 18.9.2009. However, the case of the respondents is that the last date of notification has to be reckoned for the purpose of limitation under Section 6(1)(ii) of the Act and the last publication was done locally on 31.12.2008 and therefore, the publication of notification under Section 6(1) was within time. It is the settled proposition of law, there is no requirement of simultaneous publication of the notice in all format as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act. See the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Deepak Pahwa and Others[1984 (4) SCC 308]** . However, all notices must be completed before proceeding further pursuant to the notification. It is to be noted under Section 4(2) of the Act, the right to enter the property for survey and other incidental matters vested only after exhausting the procedure under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this case, survey
W.P.(C) No.19575 of 2010 3
proceedings were initiated as evident from Ext.P2 on 8.8.2008. It is also to be noted that hearing on objection was conducted on 9.9.2008. Thus, it is clear that steps were taken pursuant to 4(1) notification much before the alleged publication of notification in the locality. It is very interesting to note that the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) on 3.9.2008 requested the Village Officer to report about the details regarding the publication of notice in the locality. This was responded by the Village Officer on 31.12.2008 stating that the notification was published and there was no response till the date. In fact, the alleged publication in the locality, even according to the respondents was only on 31.12.2008. Thus, it can be concluded that notice to be given at a convenient place in the locality was not a valid notice as it was issued only after the steps were taken under Section 4(2) and also on the conclusion of hearing the objection under Section 5A. Thus, all practical purposes, only other two notices published in the gazette and newspaper alone can be relied. It is to be noted in **Deepak Pahwa** ’s case ( _supra_ ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after holding that there is no requirement to have a simultaneous or immediate publication of notice under Section 4(1) one after and another took the view that there should not be a large gap to conclude lack
W.P.(C) No.19575 of 2010 4
of _bona fides_ in the proceedings for acquisition. This Court is of the view that publication of any notice under Section 4(1) after taking steps in terms of 4(2) and conclusion hearing under Section 5A makes such publication as redundant.
3. Admittedly, 6(1) notification is published one year after the publication of gazette and the paper publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Therefore, all proceedings that followed were in nullity. The mandate to the requirement under Section (6)(1) cannot be dispensed with. Once the court takes the view that there is no valid publication of the notification under Section 6, it would render the award passed as the nullity. However, the learned counsel for the Panchayath relying upon the judgment in **Greater Cochin Development Authority v. Victoria Xavier [2001(1) KLT 830]** held that after the award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging acquisition notice and or against any acquisition proceedings. It is to be noted, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in **Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana and Others [(2012) 9 SCC 503]** , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a writ petition filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that it was filed after passing the award. Thus, in the
W.P.(C) No.19575 of 2010 5
light of the judgments as above, I am of the view that the writ petition is perfectly maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Kulsum R.Nadiadwala [(2012) 6 SCC 348]** held that noncompliance with mandatory requirements would render the entire acquisition as null and void. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are declared as null and void.
4. The learned counsel for the Panchayath relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another[(1997) 1 SCC 134]** held that the court would have to weigh the public interest in the matter of land acquisition vis- a-vis private interest of the property owners. Therefore, it is argued even if the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of the non-compliance of legal requirements, the court should not interfere with such proceedings. It is to be noted that the acquisition is completed and the Panchayath has commissioned the taxi stand. The remedy, in such circumstances, the Panchayath is to acquire the land again in accordance with law. However, no useful purpose is served on account if the Panchayath wants to retain the land.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the Panchayath is prepared to pay the compensation in accordance
W.P.(C) No.19575 of 2010 6
with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no further proceedings need be initiated. If the Panchayath is willing, they shall indicate their stand to the State within two months. If the Panchayath is agreeable for such request, they shall deposit the compensation with the Land Acquisition Officer within a further period of two months. However, if the Panchayath is not willing, certainly, the land in question shall be restored to the petitioner on expiry of two months granted to the petitioner. The file produced before this Court shall be returned to the learned Government Pleader.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/- **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE**
ln