E.A. ABOOBACKER & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 27-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Rejected

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
263
E.A. ABOOBACKER & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2772 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
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
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 263
    263
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
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 hyper-
technical ground. When the State wants to acquire the property

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.