Case: E.A.ABOOBACKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

has to be authorized under Section 3 (c) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence the notification. It has been urged by the State that the explanatory note not being part of the notification should not be taken into consideration. 7. According to the appellants the language of the notification is very clear that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. has been appointed as Collector only in respect of those lands for which the notification of acquisition under Section 4 has already been published. Therefore, according to the appellants, the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. has no power to act as Collector in respect of other acquisitions for which he is not empowered under the notification. The appellants also place reliance on the explanatory note and submit that though it may not be part of the notification but it clearly indicates that the appointment of the Special Tahsildar (LA), 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 purpose. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that by this notification the Special Tahsildar (LA) K.R.L. has been specifically appointed as ?Collector? for Ernakulam District and is, therefore, empowered to act as Collector for all acquisitions of land in Ernakulam District. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the words ?has been? cannot be read only in the past tense and the words ?has been? may be read as ?is?. It is also contended that the District Collector has distributed the work to the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. vide order dated 15.12.2005. 8. 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 sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act has been published. 9. On a careful analysis of the notification, in our 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 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, 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. 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 officer as Collector.The District Collector has no power to do so. 11. The High Court took 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?. We are not at all in agreement with this view of the High Court. 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. 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 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. In our considered opinion 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. 12. It has been urged by Shri K.N. Balgopal that Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. has acted as Collector not only in the case of Infopark but in many other cases and many land owners have accepted the 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 Special Tahsildar (LA) K.R.L., accepted the award of the Collector or have filed objections with regard to quantum and area only and have not disputed the authority of the Special Tahsildar (LA) K.R.L. to act as Collector, such land owners cannot take benefit of this decision. As far as this decision is concerned it will only enure for the benefit of the appellants before us. 13.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. On a careful analysis of the notification, in our 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 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, 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. 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 officer as Collector.The District Collector has no power to do so.The High Court took the viewthat since publicinterest is concerneda liberal view has tobe taken and when acquisition proceedings are completed or going on for acquiring large portions of landsrequired for public purpose, such acquisition cannot be stopped on ?cryptic hyper technical ground?.We are not at all in agreement with this view of the High Court. It is a settled position of jurisprudence that whenthe 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. If the State wanted him toact 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 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. In our considered opinion 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. It has been urged by Shri K.N. Balgopal that Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. has acted as Collector not only in the case of Infopark but in many other cases and many land owners have accepted the awardand 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 Special Tahsildar (LA) K.R.L., accepted the award of the Collector or have filed objections with regard to quantum and area only and have not disputed the authority of the Special Tahsildar (LA) K.R.L. to act as Collector, such land owners cannot take benefit of this decision. As far as this decision is concerned it will only enure for the benefit of the appellants before us.