E.A. Aboobacker & Ors. V/S State Of Kerala & Ors.
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.  On 05.12.2005, the Government of Kerala accorded administrative sanction to acquire 177.79 acres of land in Ernakulam district for the purpose of the Infopark. The Government also accorded sanction to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Act. Thereafter, on 15.12.2005, the District Collector, Ernakulam issued a Government Order appointing the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. as the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of land for the Infopark.Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the said notification, it is mentioned that in view of the order of the Government, application of Section 5(A) of the Act has been exempted by invoking the powers under Section 17(4) of the Act. According to the appellants 23.92 acres of land belonging to them was sought to be acquired along with the land of others. The appellants filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act.According to them no action was taken on their objections and, thereafter, they filed Writ Petition No.9735 of 2008 in the High Court of Kerala seeking various reliefs including quashing of the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act. The main ground raised was that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. was not entitled to perform the functions of Collector under the Act.The stand of the State was that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. was entitled to act as Collector for the entire Ernakulam District and was therefore empowered to act as Collector even in relation to land acquired for the Infopark. The writ court dismissed the writ petition in so far as this objection was concerned. The appellants filed Writ Appeal No.2446 of 2008 which was also dismissed on 06.01.2009. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT: Whether the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited, Ernakulam, Vytilla, Cochin was empowered to act as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in respect of lands acquired by the State for an Infopark? RATIO OF THE COURTThe court observed that the State may in its wisdom appoint such officer for the entire district or for a special project. On perusal of the notification 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 subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act has been published.In courts opinion, 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 subsection (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.The court held that though the explanatory note may not be part of the notification the same can definitely be used to resolve the ambiguity, if any, 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. 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 acquisition of land relating to Cochin Refineries Limited within Ernakulam District. The court further observed 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 hyper technical ground.The court finally observed that 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. DECISION HELD BY COURT: The appeals were accordingly allowed. Pending application(s) if any is also allowed. The judgments and orders of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.2446 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009 and Writ Petition No.9735 of 2008 dated 25.11.2008 are set aside in the aforesaid terms.Court also made it clear that no other point was raised before us and, therefore, the State can take appropriate action in accordance with law if it still wants to acquire the land.
the Special TahsildarCochin Refineries Limited Ernakulam Vytilla Cochin­19 K.R.L.”] was empowered to act as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 of the Act. Thereafter on 15.12.2005 the District Collector Ernakulam issued a Government Order appointing the Special Tahsildar K.R.L. as the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of land for the Infopark the Government application of Section 5(A) of the Act has been was sought to be acquired along with the land of others. The appellants filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act According to them no action was taken on their objections and thereafter they filed Writ Petition No.9735 of 2008 in the High Court of Kerala seeking various reliefs including quashing of the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act. The not entitled to perform the functions of Collector under the Act was entitled to act as Collector for the entire Ernakulam District filed Writ Appeal No.2446 of 2008 which was also dismissed on 3. We have heard Shri R. Venkataramani learned senior counsel for the appellants Shri Basant R. learned senior counsel appearing for Infopark and Shri K.N. Balgopal learned senior counsel Collector has been defined under Section 3(c) of the Act as officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector A bare reading of the provision makes it amply clear that the Collector. It is obvious that the State has to issue a specific notification to appoint any other officer to perform the duties of appropriate Government that land in any locality is for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily shall cause public notice of the substance of such In the present case the controversy revolves around the No.51590 BI 89 RD Dated Trivandrum 21st August 1989 of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894the Government of Kerala hereby appoint the Special Tahsildar Cochin Refineries Limited Ernakulam Vytilla Cochin­19 to perform the functions of a and under sub section 2 of section 4 of the said Act authorize him his servants and workmen in exercise of the powers conferred under the said sub section in respect of any land within his As per the Government Order No. 1 89 ID dated 15.04.1989 Government have sanction creation of new special of land for the expansion of Cochin Refineries Limited Ambalamugal. In order to perform the function of a ‘Collector’ be authorized under Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act of acquisition under Section 4 has already been published Therefore according to the appellants the Special Tahsildar K.R.L. has no power to act as Collector in respect of other The appellants also place reliance on the explanatory note and submit that though it may not be part of the notification but it K.R.L. was only in respect of 320 acres of land involved in the expansion of Cochin Refineries Limited and not for any other this notification the Special Tahsildar K.R.L. has been the District Collector has distributed the work to the Special notification the Government of Kerala had appointed an officer by the name of Special TahsildarK.R.L. to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act only within the area of Ernakulam On a careful analysis of the notification in our opinion the LA) K.R.L. only in respect of the land for which the notification under sub­section of Section 4 had already been issued. The same can definitely be used to resolve the ambiguity if any in the notification. The explanatory note clearly indicates that the notification has been issued only to empower the officer to act as 10. As far as the G.O. dated 15.12.2005 is concerned all that we need to say is that under Section 3(c) of the Act it is only the appropriate Government which can specifically appoint any other 11. The High Court took the view that since public interest is concerned a liberal view has to be taken and when acquisition lands required for public purpose such acquisition cannot be 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 to act as Collector. However the notification should be clear as to present case is concerned the Special Tahsildar K.R.L. was wanted him to act as Collector in respect of other acquisitions regard but relying upon the notification dated 21.08.1989 the State wants to acquire the property of a citizen which is a constitutional right of any citizen under Article 300(A) of the by law. It cannot urge that because the acquisition is in public taken is the legal view. In our considered opinion the Special entire District of Ernakulam and is empowered only in respect of acquisitions for which notification had already been issued for award and if we decide the matter against the State many complications may arise. We therefore make it clear that if any land owners have without any objection to the authority of the Writ Appeal No.2446 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009 and Writ Petition No.9735 of 2008 dated 25.11.2008 are set aside in the aforesaid us and therefore the State can take appropriate action in