Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.3(c), 4(1), 17(1) and 17(4) – Special Tahsildar if empowered to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act – State Government acquired land in its district for purpose of the Infopark and invoked the urgency clause u/s.17(1) of the Act – Thereafter, notification was issued u/s.4(1) of the Act – According to appellants their separate land was sought to be acquired along with the land of others – Appellants contended that Special Tahsildar was not entitled to perform the functions of Collector in respect of other acquisitions for which he was not empowered under the Act – Held: A notification dated 21.08.1989 was issued by the State Government appointing Special Tahsildar to perform the functions of a Collector only in respect of any land within his jurisdiction for the acquisition of which a notification under sub-section(1) of s.4 of the Act was published – Special Tahsildar was not empowered by the notification to issue any fresh notification in respect of other land – Notification dated 21.08.1989 was followed by an explanatory note, which resolved the ambiguity – It clearly indicated that notification was issued only to empower the officer to act as Collector in respect for which the notification under sub-section(1) of s.4 had already been issued – If the State wanted him to act as Collector in respect of other acquisitions, nothing prevented the State from issuing a fresh notification in this regard, but relying upon the notification dated 21.08.1989 the Special Tahsildar could not have acted as Collector in respect of other acquisitions.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On perusal of the notification dated 21.08.1989 it is apparent that by the said notification the Government of Kerala had appointed an officer by the name of Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act only within the area of Ernakulam District, only in respect of any land within his jurisdiction for the acquisition of which a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been published. [Para 8] [268-G]
2. On a careful analysis of the said notification, the State has empowered the specified officer i.e. the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. only in respect of the land for which the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 had already been issued. The Special Tahsildar (LA) K.R.L. was not empowered by the notification of 21.08.1989 to issue any fresh notification in respect of other land. Though the explanatory note may not be part of the notification the same can definitely be used to resolve the ambiguity, in the notification. The explanatory note clearly indicates that the notification has been issued only to empower the officer to act as Collector in respect of 320 acres of land. [Para 9] [269-A-C]
3. The High Court erred in taking the view that since public interest is concerned a liberal view has to be taken and when acquisition proceedings are completed or going on for acquiring large portions of lands required for public purpose, such acquisition cannot be stopped on “cryptic hyper-technical ground”. It is a settled position of jurisprudence that when the law prescribes a procedure to be followed for doing any act or thing then that procedure has to be followed and any violation of such procedure would make the act voidable, if not void. There is no doubt that the State is empowered to appoint any officer other than a Collector or Deputy Commissioner to act as Collector. However, the notification should be clear as to for what purpose such Collector is being appointed. As far as the present case is concerned the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. was appointed as Collector only in respect of the acquisition of land relating to Cochin Refineries Limited within Ernakulam District. If the State wanted him to act as Collector in respect of other acquisitions, nothing prevented the State from issuing a fresh notification in this regard, but relying upon the notification dated 21.08.1989 the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. cannot act as Collector in respect of other acquisitions. This is not a hypertechnical ground. When the State wants to acquire the property of a citizen which is a constitutional right of any citizen under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India it must strictly follow the procedure prescribed by law. It cannot urge that because the acquisition is in public interest a more liberal view is to be taken. There is no question of taking a liberal or conservative view. The only view which has to be taken is the legal view. The Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. was not authorized to act as Collector for the entire District of Ernakulam and is empowered only in respect of acquisitions for which notification had already been issued for acquiring land for the Cochin Refineries Limited. [Para 11] [289-D-H; 270-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.