Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KANDENKUTTY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of
the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on
February 9, 1996, in O.P. No.5382/83.
The admitted position is that Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
the "Act"), which is pari materia with Section 3 of the
Kerala Land Acquisition Act, was published on January 10,
1981. The petitioner has initially challenged the scheme in
O.P. No.2436/82 which was dismissed and was confirmed in
Writ Appeal No.223/82, dated April 23, 1982. The petitioner
filed another writ petition in the year 1993 and got the
further proceeding stayed. The same has been dismissed by
the High Court by the impugned order. Thus this special
leave.
It is contended for the petitioner that when a
notification under Section 48 of the Act withdrawing the
earlier notification in respect of some of the lands was
issued, the integrality of the notification stood disturbed
and, therefore, the acquisition has become bad in law. In
support thereof, Shri Sukumar, learned senior counsel,
sought to place reliance on the judgments of Andhra Pradesh
High Court and Kerala High Court which are inconsistent with
each other. He states that as there is conflict of opinions
the conflict needs to be resolved. We find no force in the
contention since the controversy has already been set at
naught by this court in Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of
Bihar [ A.I.R. 1984 SC 1767] and The Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer, Bombay v. M/s. Godrej & Boyce [A.I.R. 1987 SC
2421]. Therefore, merely because some of the lands which
formed part of the same notification were denotified in
exercise of the power under Section 48 of the Act, the
integrality of the notification for acquisition has not
become bad in law.
It is then contended that due to the delay in the
disposal of the matters the prices of the land have
escalated and as a consequence, the acquisition has become
bad in law. We find no force in the contention. In support
of this contention, learned counsel relied upon those
judgments of this Court where equities have been worked out
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
in directing payment of higher compensation from the date of
the publication of the declaration under Section 6. In those
cases the State was responsible for the delay. In this case
it is not responsible for the delay in finalisation of the
acquisition. On the other hand, the petitioner has himself
put the spokes at every stage and have the matter delayed by
agitating his right in judicial proceedings. The pendency of
the judicial proceedings cannot be made a ground to say that
in the process, due to escalation in the prices, the
notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act has become
bad in law. Under these circumstances, we do not find any
illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting
interference.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.