Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 795 (RAJ)

Lalita Ben v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-07

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal arises out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-3-1999 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that in earlier petition challenging the acquisition, judgements have turned against the petitioner up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The proceedings of acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 have been upheld. In the present petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings taken by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu as Land Acquisition Officer. According to the petitioner, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu was replaced by Notification Annex. 3 dated 28-5-1979 and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sirohi was appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was negatived by the learned Single Judge by saying that this objection was not raised at the earlier occasion and the petitioner has come so late and the acquisition having been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be challenged and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The case of the petitioner in the appeal is that the petitioner is not agitating the question of validity of Sections 4 and 6 notifications. The challenge of the petitioner in the appeal is that by notification dated 28-5-1979 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7-6-1979 the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu was replaced as the Land Acquisition Officer by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi. Under Section 3(c) of -the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') it is the Collector who is appointed under the Act to take the proceedings. While the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu was continuing with the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act an objection was raised by the petitioner produced herewith as Annex.1. The objection was received by the respondent State on 18-4-1998. Notwithstanding the objection that the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu has no jurisdiction to proceed to act under Section 11 of the Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu vide Annex. 6 passed an award on 30-4-1998. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award is without jurisdiction because under Section 3(c) of the Act the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu has been replaced as Collector, Land Acquisition / Land Acquisition Officer by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi vide notification dated 28-5-1979 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7-6-1979 (Annex.3). 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award is without jurisdiction because under Section 3(c) of the Act the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu has been replaced as Collector, Land Acquisition / Land Acquisition Officer by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi vide notification dated 28-5-1979 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7-6-1979 (Annex.3). After 7-6-1979 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu has no jurisdiction to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings at all. 6. The State in its reply has not challenged the fact of issuance of notification but the counsel for the State has urged that once the possession of land is taken by the State authorities then the acquisition cannot be touched. He has placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 501 Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, U.P. v. Suresha Nand Juyal Alias Musa Ram (deceased) by Lrs., reported in (1997) 9 SCC 224 and C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627 . 7. The cases relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General relate to the challenge to Section 6 and has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. 9. The definition of Collector as contained in Section 3(c) of the Act is explicit and clear. The award was to be passed by the officer appointed. The officer appointed was the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sirohi after 7-6-1979. He has not taken the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. The proceedings having not been taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi and having been taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu cannot be said to be the proceedings taken by the Officer appointed by the State Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the following observations of Tindal, C.J. made in Sussex Peerage case (1844) 11 C1 & Fin 85: (1843-60) All ER Rep 55 in Arul Nadar v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms reported in (1998) 7 SCC 157 : "If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense and the words themselves do alone in such cases best declare the intent of the lawgiver." 10. Section 11 of the Act requires that the award should be made by the Collector. The term 'Collector' is defined in Section 3(c) of the Act and by notification the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi was appointed as the Collector. In this view of the matter, the proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu can be said to be without jurisdiction. 11. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the proceedings taken by an officer not specially appointed or duly notified to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act are non est and void for want of competence / jurisdiction of such an officer to proceed with acquisition. (vide S. Arjan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1959 Punjab 538 ; Abdul Hussain Tayabali v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1968 SC 432 , the Hon'ble SC considered the meaning of the term "specially appointed" and observed as under : "What it means is that as such an officer is not a Collector and cannot perform the functions of a Collector under the Act, he has to be specially appointed' that is, appointed for the specific purpose of performing these functions. The word 'specially' has therefore reference to the special purpose of appointment and is not used to convey the sense of a special as against a general appointment. The word 'specially' thus connotes the appointment of an officer or officers to perform functions which ordinarily a Collector would perform under the Act. It qualifies the word 'appointed' and means no more than that he is appointed specially to perform the functions entrusted by the Act to the Collector". 12. Action by an officer who is duly constituted Collector within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act is a sine qua non for valid proceedings. An officer who is not specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act, lacks inherent jurisdiction and proceedings taken by him stand vitiated for want of jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed as even the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction. Further when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. Further when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been hitherto un controverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. 13. In this view of the matter, the proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu are the proceedings which can be said to be without jurisdiction. That being the position the same are not liable to be maintained. The consequences are that the proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu cannot be maintained. In view of Section 11 of the Act any proceeding not taken within two years of the issuance of notification under Section 6 should lapse. That being the position the acquisition cannot be saved. 14. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The award passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Abu cannot be treated to be an award passed by the Officer appointed. The order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is also set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no orders as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******