Supreme Court clarifies the appointment of a Special Tahsildar as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act: E.A. Aboobacker vs State of Kerala (27 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 834
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.
The Supreme Court of India recently examined the extent of power granted to a Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to act as a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core issue was whether the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited, Ernakulam, was authorized to act as a Collector for land acquired for an Infopark, or if their authority was limited to land acquisitions specifically for Cochin Refineries Limited. This judgment clarifies the scope of authority for specially appointed officers under the Land Acquisition Act. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

On December 5, 2005, the Government of Kerala approved the acquisition of 177.79 acres of land in Ernakulam district for the development of an Infopark. The government also invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, on December 15, 2005, the District Collector, Ernakulam, appointed the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited (K.R.L.), as the Land Acquisition Officer for the Infopark project. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, exempting the application of Section 5A of the Act by invoking Section 17(4). The appellants, whose 23.92 acres of land were among those to be acquired, filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act. They claimed that no action was taken on their objections, leading them to file Writ Petition No. 9735 of 2008 in the High Court of Kerala. The appellants sought to quash the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act, arguing that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was not authorized to act as a Collector under the Act for the Infopark land acquisition. The State contended that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was authorized to act as Collector for the entire Ernakulam District.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The primary contention was that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was not authorized to act as the Collector for the land acquisition related to the Infopark. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the State’s argument that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was empowered to act as Collector for the entire Ernakulam District. Subsequently, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 2446 of 2008, which was also dismissed by the High Court on January 6, 2009. The High Court reasoned that a liberal view should be taken in matters of public interest and that the acquisition should not be stopped on “cryptic hyper technical ground”.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which defines the term “Collector”:

“(c) the expression “Collector” means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act;”

This section specifies that the Collector and Deputy Commissioner of a district are automatically considered “Collectors” under the Act. Additionally, the appropriate government has the power to appoint any other officer to perform the functions of a Collector. Such appointments require a specific notification by the State Government, which may be for the entire district or for a specific project. Section 4(1) of the Act outlines the procedure for publishing a preliminary notification for land acquisition.

Section 4(1) of the Act reads as follows:

“4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon .—(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the notification).”

Arguments

The appellants argued that the 1989 notification clearly stated that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was appointed as Collector only for lands for which a notification under Section 4 had already been published. They contended that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., did not have the power to act as Collector for other acquisitions. They also relied on the explanatory note to the notification, which indicated that the appointment was specifically for the acquisition of 320 acres of land for the expansion of Cochin Refineries Limited.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the 1989 notification appointed the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., as “Collector” for the entire Ernakulam District, empowering them to act as Collector for all land acquisitions in the district. They contended that the words “has been” in the notification should be read as “is” and that the District Collector had distributed work to the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., through an order dated 15.12.2005. The State also argued that the explanatory note should not be considered as it is not part of the notification.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their focus on the specific wording of the 1989 notification and its explanatory note to argue that the Special Tahsildar’s powers were limited, not district-wide, highlighting the need for strict adherence to the law in land acquisition matters.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited, Ernakulam, was empowered to act as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of lands acquired by the State for an Infopark.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which defines the term “Collector” and outlines the powers of the appropriate government to appoint officers to perform the functions of a Collector. The Court also considered Section 4(1) of the Act, which deals with the publication of preliminary notifications for land acquisition.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was not authorized to act as Collector for the Infopark land acquisition. The Court interpreted the 1989 notification to mean that the Special Tahsildar was only authorized to act as Collector for land acquisitions related to Cochin Refineries Limited for which notification under Section 4 had already been issued.

The Court emphasized that when the law prescribes a procedure, it must be strictly followed. It stated that the State must adhere to the procedure prescribed by law when acquiring a citizen’s property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that a liberal approach should be taken in matters of public interest.

The Court observed that the explanatory note to the notification, though not a part of the notification, can be used to resolve any ambiguity in the notification. The explanatory note clearly indicated that the notification was issued to empower the officer to act as Collector in respect of 320 acres of land for Cochin Refineries Limited.

The Court also clarified that the District Collector had no power to appoint any officer as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need for strict adherence to the legal procedures outlined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized that when the law prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed meticulously, and any deviation can render the action voidable or void. The Court also highlighted the importance of protecting citizens’ property rights, which are constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. The Court rejected the argument that a liberal view should be taken in matters of public interest, emphasizing that the legal view must prevail. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to ensure that the State does not misuse its power of eminent domain.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the 1989 notification and Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Special Tahsildar was authorized to act as Collector for the entire Ernakulam District, emphasizing that the notification was specific to land acquisitions for Cochin Refineries Limited. The Court also rejected the argument that the words “has been” should be read as “is”.

The Court also emphasized that the District Collector has no power to appoint any officer as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act.

The Supreme Court quoted:

“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 question of taking a liberal or conservative view. The only view which has to be taken is the legal view.”

“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.”

The Court did not have any dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in land acquisition.
• ✓ The powers of specially appointed officers under the Land Acquisition Act are limited to the specific purpose and area mentioned in the notification.
• ✓ The District Collector does not have the power to appoint any officer as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• ✓ The State must issue a fresh notification if it wants a specially appointed officer to act as Collector for other acquisitions.
• ✓ Landowners who have not objected to the authority of the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. cannot benefit from this judgment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside 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. The Court clarified that the State can take appropriate action in accordance with law if it still wants to acquire the land.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the law prescribes a specific procedure for doing any act, that procedure must be strictly followed. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure can make the act voidable or void. The Supreme Court clarified that a Special Tahsildar appointed under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is only authorized to act as Collector for the specific purpose and area mentioned in the notification. The Court also clarified that the District Collector has no power to appoint any officer as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act. This case reinforces the need for strict adherence to the law in land acquisition matters and protects the constitutional rights of citizens under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the interpretation of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L., was not authorized to act as Collector for the Infopark land acquisition. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to legal procedures and the protection of citizens’ property rights. The judgment clarifies the scope of authority for specially appointed officers under the Land Acquisition Act and reinforces the principle that the State must follow the prescribed legal procedure when acquiring a citizen’s property.