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.