Mary, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder and Others vs The District Collector, Thrissur, The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for Trhissur Corporation, The Secretary, Chalakkudy Municipality and The State of Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioners are the appellants. The writ petition was filed seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P3. Declaration is also sought Exts. P3, P4 and P6 are abuse of process of law and liable to be set aside. According to the appellants, they are the absolute owners of the property in question. The said property along with other properties were sought to be acquired by the respondents and Ext. P2 section 4(1) notification and Ext. P3 section 6 declaration were made. According to them, declaration was made after the expiry of one year from the date of section 4(1) notification and Ext. P7 notice for delivery of the property was issued without any authority.

The learned Single Judge found that the writ petition was filed on 7-3-2011. Section 4(1) notification and section 6 declaration was during December, 2007 and the last publication were on 23-2-2008. Section 6 declaration was on 20-2-2009. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the writ petition was filed more than two years after declaration u/s 6 of the Act and found that there was no justification for the appellants to challenge the land acquisition proceedings at a belated stage. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that long before the filing of the writ petition, appellants appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to Rule 9(3) notices and section 9 enquiry was conducted during January, 2011. Appellants through their counsel also participated in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, there was no justification for the appellants to approach this Court challenging section 6 declaration at this belated stage. The writ petition was dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader.

Learned Government Pleader points out that the award was passed before the filing of the writ petition. What is more the appellant has sought reference of the matter.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that correction is done in date of declaration. The fact is that the appellants chose to approach this Court after passing of the award and after two years from the date of declaration. The appellants also have approached the reference court. In such circumstances, we need not investigate the alleged correction. We think that it cannot be held that there is an error warranting exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in this matter. The appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.