KANDENKUTTY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

                       KANDENKUTTY AND ORS.                                         A
                                       v.
                      STATE OFKERALA AND.ORS.

                              MARCH 10, 1997

               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                                B

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894/f<erala Land Acquisition Act:

      Ss. 4(1) and 48/s. 3--Withdrawal from acquisition of lands-Held,
merely because some of the lands which fonned part of the same Notification         C
were denotified in exercise of power u/s. 48, the integrality of the Notification
for acquisition has not become bad in law.

      Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1984) SC 1767 and The
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v. Mis. Godrej & Boyce, AIR (1987)
SC 2421, relied on.                                                                 D
      Acquisition proceedings-Delay in finalisation-Held, claimant himself
delayed the matter by agitating his right in judicial proceedings-Pendency of
judicial proceedings cannot be made a ground to assail the Notification u/s.
4(1) as bad in law due to escalation in the prices.
                                                                                    E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 6173 of 1997.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.96 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. No. 5382 of 1983.
                                                                                    F
      K. Sukumaran, Mrs. Baby Krishnan and Ramesh Babu M.R. for the
Petitioners.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division          G
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              H
                                   905
    906                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A 10, 1981. The petitioner had 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 proceedings stayed. The same has been
    dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. Thus this special
    leave.
B
          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
C   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.LR .. (1984) SC 1767 and
D   The Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v. M/~, Godrej & Boyce, A.LR.
    (1987) SC 2421. Therefore, merely because some; of the land, 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.

E        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 in directing payment of higher compensation
  from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6. In those
F 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
G 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.

    R.P.                                                         Petition dismissed.