Judgment :- 1. Kavilumpara Panchayat had proposed to construct a Bus stand at Thottilpalam. It had proposed the acquisition of 40 cents of land in R. S. No. 87/3. Notification under S.3(1) was issued on 30-1-1979. That was pursuant to a request made by the District Panchayat Officer. One Alambadi Moideen Haji was in possession of that land. He objected to the acquisition. That was overruled by the Land Acquisition Officer after due enquiries. At that stage, the land holder filed OP No. 1783/79 and obtained a stay of further proceedings from this court in CMP. No. 7442 of 1979. That Original Petition was dismissed by this court by judgment dated 2-12-1981. The Land Acquisition Officer completed further proceedings in the matter. The land holder Sri. Moideen Haji again filed OP. No. 2419 of 1982 before this court and obtained an order of stay of further proceedings. His averment was that he had filed a petition before the Government under S.52 of the Kerala Land Acquisition requesting the Government to withdraw the acquisition of this land in R.S. No. 87/3 in Kavilumpara Village. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an order dated 16-2-1982 pursuant to which the Executive Officer of Kavilumpara Panchayat had taken possession on 10-3-1982, and bad reported to the Government that the payment of the amount of compensation could not be made since the party had not turned up for receiving the cheque on the date fixed for payment, the Government again passed an order of stay on 15-3-1982 the date fixed for paying compensation. This court vacated the order of stay by its order dated 1-7-1982. The Government, however, obligingly issued another order of stay on 24-8-1982 OP No. 2419/1982 itself was dismissed by judgment dated 25-3-1986 by our learned brother, M. P. Menon 0). He noted that the claim for enhancement of compensation was the subject matter of reference under S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government not having the. power to withdraw under S.52 of the Land Acquisition Act as possession of the property was taken by the authorities on 10-3-1982. the Court held that "Ext. P1 is a request to Government to exercise its power under S.52. The Government not having the. power to withdraw under S.52 of the Land Acquisition Act as possession of the property was taken by the authorities on 10-3-1982. the Court held that "Ext. P1 is a request to Government to exercise its power under S.52. The counter affidavit discloses that possession of the property was taken by the authorities on 10-3-1982, Thereafter the Government could not have exercised its power under S.52 even assuming that it had reasons to do so". Curiously, those proceedings were not pursued any further. 2. The Panchayat then seems to have initiated another proposal to acquire one acre of land in R. S. No. 140/2 of Kavilumpara Village. One Dr. Luis objected to the acquisition. The District Panchayat Officer, Kozhikode approved the proposal under R.3 of Kerala Panchayats (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Properties) Rules, read with S.65 of the Panchayat Act and forwarded the same to the Land Acquisition Officer on 30-7-1983. The Land Acquisition Officer approved the proposal and notified the same under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act by publication in two daily newspapers viz., in the "Dishabhimani" daily dated 9-2-1984 and in the "Mathrubhumi" daily dated 10-2-1984 Dr. Luis who owned 10 cents out of the land proposed for acquisition, bad filed a petition on 23-7-1983 before the District Collector objecting to the proposal After conducting enquiries, through the Land Acquisition Officer, the District Collector rejected the request of Dr. Luis by order dated 20-1-1984. Thereafter. Dr. Luis approached the Government. The Government issued an order of stay as per letter No. 7450/B2/84/RD dated 3-2-1984. On 13-2-1984, R.3 notice was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The District Collector, however, by his letter No. B3-30308/83 dated 16-7-84 submitted a report to the Government, after conducting due enquiries in the matter. The Government, in their order No. 7450/B2/84/RD dated 17-10-1984, exempted 10 cents of land from acquisition. An arithmetical error in the above order was corrected by the Government in its order dated 9-11-84. 3. The petitioner, who was formerly President of Kavilumpara Panchayat filed O. P. No. 10864/84-P challenging the Government Order dated 17-10-1984, granting exemption of 10 cents of land in favour of the 4th respondent in the O. P. Our learned brother, M, P. Menon (n, allowed the Original Petition by judgment dated 20-7-1987, as follows: "Ext. 3. The petitioner, who was formerly President of Kavilumpara Panchayat filed O. P. No. 10864/84-P challenging the Government Order dated 17-10-1984, granting exemption of 10 cents of land in favour of the 4th respondent in the O. P. Our learned brother, M, P. Menon (n, allowed the Original Petition by judgment dated 20-7-1987, as follows: "Ext. P2 is an order whereunder Government exempted 10 cents from acquisition when Land Acquisition proceedings commenced by the Collector in pursuance of Ext. P1 notification were pending. My attention has not been drawn to any provision of law under which Government could at that stage grant exemption like the one contained in Ext. P2 The specific question of jurisdiction has been raised in Ground B of the Original Petition. The counter affidavit does not contain any answer to it. Nor is the Government Pleader able to satisfy me that Government has any such power. Ext. P-2 is therefore beyond jurisdiction and it is quashed. No costs". 4. The 4th respondent challenged the above judgment in WA. No. 882 of 1987. A Division Bench consisting of Justice EC. S. Paripoornan and Justice M. Fathima Beevi, dismissed the above Writ Appeal by judgment dated 20-11-1987. The judgment in OP. No 10864 of 1984, has, therefore, become final. The present appeal is filed on behalf of the State Government and the District Collector, mainly on the ground that Ext. P-2 order dated 17-10-1984 exempting 10 cents of land for land acquisition was justified by the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. 5. Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the learned Single Judge erred in law in assuming that the Government had no power to grant exemption from acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act. According to him exemption of portion of the land from acquisition is referable to the power of the Government to withdraw from acquisition attention to S.52 of the Land Acquisition Act and asserted that the Government is free to withdraw from any acquisition before the land is taken possession of. 6. The local authority which requires the land for construction of a bus stand at Thottilpalam was for all intents and purposes, the petitioner before this court. 6. The local authority which requires the land for construction of a bus stand at Thottilpalam was for all intents and purposes, the petitioner before this court. The proposal for acquisition of this land had been duly approved by the District Panchayat Officer under S.65 of the Kerala Panchayat Act read with R.3(A)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat (Acquisition and Transfer of Immoveable Properties)Rules. The proposal was forwarded to the District Collector on 30-7-1983. But even before that. Dr. Louis bad filed an objection before the District Collector on 25-7-1983. That was dismissed by the District Collector after due enquiry on 20-1-1984. The Government had issued an order of stay on 3-2-1984. But the notification under S, 3(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was published only on 9-2-1984 in the 'Desbabhimani' daily and only on 10-2-1984 in the 'Mathrubhumi' daily. The enquiry under S.5 could not be conducted on 13-2-1984, because of the order of stay issued by the State Government on 3-2-1984. 7. It may be true, that the Government may have power to withdraw from acquisition under S.52 of the Land Acquisition Act. But we are of the opinion that the Government can have no power to scotch the proposal for acquisition much less to grant partial exemption even before the initial notification is issued under S.3(1) of the Act. We are certain that S.52 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act does not authorise the Government to issue an order of stay of the land acquisition proceedings even before the issuance of a notification under S.3(1) by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State Government has no power under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act to stay the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to a notification or to restrain him from proceeding with the acquisition. After the notification under S.3(1) and the declaration under S.6 of the Act are issued by the concerned authority had not taken possession, the Government may have power under S.52 of the Act to withdraw from acquisition. Even that power has to be very sparingly used, and shall not be exercised at all to defeat the efforts of the local authority to discharge its statutory functions for the only reason that a landholder has access to higher echelons of power in the Government. The views of the local authority is entitled to great weight. Even that power has to be very sparingly used, and shall not be exercised at all to defeat the efforts of the local authority to discharge its statutory functions for the only reason that a landholder has access to higher echelons of power in the Government. The views of the local authority is entitled to great weight. Except when it is asserted and is positively established that the local authority was acting due to corrupt motives or was abusing its jurisdiction clandestingely due to personal bias or other such considerations, the Government shall not step in and nullify the efforts of the Panchayats to discharge its functions within the terms set by law. We do not find from the records which we have perused, any compelling reason made out before, or by the Government justifying the exercise of the power to withdraw from acquisition in this case. We are also of the opinion that the very amplitude of the power should operate as a restraint on its exercise in the absence of compelling reasons. Otherwise, local self Government - even in the restricted sense-will reduce itself into a teasing illusion, with the overbearing State soliciting any and every resident of the Panchayat to rush to the Government to nullify efforts of the Panchayat to provide some basic facilities in its area in due discharge of its public statutory and social obligations. The Panchayat Act and the relevant Rules do provide an effective machinery against abuse of power by the local authorities. The power of the Government under S.144 of the Panchayats Act can also be an effective deterrant of abuse of such power. It cannot be easily assumed that in spite of all those processual and substantive safeguards, the Government shall have the power to scuttle acquisition of land for the local authorities only because, one who could have objected under the Land Acquisition Act or the Panchayat Act, had chosen to make a beeline to the Government, and that too before the issue of any notification under the Land Acquisition Act. 8. We are satisfied, in the very peculiar facts of this case, that the learned single judge was right in holding that no provision of the Land Acquisition Act authorised the State to grant exemption from acquisition. 8. We are satisfied, in the very peculiar facts of this case, that the learned single judge was right in holding that no provision of the Land Acquisition Act authorised the State to grant exemption from acquisition. The Government Pleader was not able to bring to our notice any provision of land empowering the State to grant such exemption from acquisition in a proceeding instituted before the proposal is notified under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is evident that the State Government did not mention in its counter affidavit, or even before this court, that any such power is conferred on the State Government under any provision of the Land Acquisition Act. An assumption in favour of the appellant can be made only if the Government has an over-riding power-depite all statutory provisions to act as it feels like and whenever it pleases, and further that such power can stultify even the limited powers of local self Government in areas earmarked for Panchayats. That may be Government by caprice and whim and not rule of Jaw. In those circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be successfully assailed. 9. We see no reason why the State Government should be anxious to espouse the cause of a land-holder, who sought exemption from acquisition of a land for a public purpose and whose appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by judgment in W. A. No. 882 of 1987 dated 20-11-1987. We do not understand the anxiety of the State Government to assist an unsuccessful land-holder against the Panchayat in its frustrating attempt at acquisition of land fora bus stand. The Government bad acted in an identical manner on a prior occasion when inspite of the dismissal of two Original Petitions by this court, the Government withdrew the acquisition of 41 cents of land belonging to another land-holder. Such interference by the State Government must have caused extreme inconvenience and financial strains to the local authority, since the value of land must have increased by leaps and bounds in the meantime. The Kerala Panchayats Act and the Kerala Panchayat (Acquisition of Immovable Properties) Rules contain the manner in which the Panchayat shall initiate and the District Panchayat Officer shall finally approve proposals for acquisition of land for public purposes. The Kerala Panchayats Act and the Kerala Panchayat (Acquisition of Immovable Properties) Rules contain the manner in which the Panchayat shall initiate and the District Panchayat Officer shall finally approve proposals for acquisition of land for public purposes. If a proposal of the Panchayat has been approved by the District Panchayat Officer, unless it is found that such approval was manifestly wrong, either in law or on facts, there is no power in the State Government to interfere even under S.144 of the Kerala Panchayat Act. It cannot be assumed that what the State Government could not have done under its statutory appellate/revisional/supervisory power under the Panchayat Actor meddle with a decision rendered under that Act could be done by the State Government under S.32 of the Land Acquisition Act without stating any reason at all, in favour of a person who has not chosen to avail of any of the opportunities under the Panchayat Act and the Rules and the Land Acquisition Act, for the only reason that be could approach the State Government directly. In these circumstances, Ext. P2 order issued by the State Government which refused to disclose the source of the power to justify grant of exemption of part of the land from acquisition made on behalf of the local authority, amounts to a callous abuse and evidences an authoritarian interference with the functions of the local authorities. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit at all, even assuming that an appeal could be maintained at the instance of the State after the dismissal of Writ Appeal 882/1987 filed by the land holder. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Dismissed.