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

2. 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.

Reasoning:
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.