AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 31 of 1978) is challenged on the ground that after the report was submitted to the District Collector, no order as contemplated u/s 4(3)(a) of the Act was passed by the District Collector. On the contrary, the same was passed by the Personal Assistant to the District Collector. Relying on Jainabi v. The State of Tamil Nadu 2006(5) CTC 163, the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is challenged.
Para 6(3)(e) of the counter-affidavit, which is relevant to decide the present case reads as follows:
6(e) The Personal Assistant to the Collector is empowered to pass orders on behalf of the Collector, Salem, so there is no violation of the procedure contemplated u/s 4(3)(a) and (b) of the Act.
and confirms the contention of the petitioner that the District Collector has not passed the order as contemplated u/s 4(3)(a) of the Act.
The District Collector has to exercise the power under the Act. The delegation of such power is not contemplated nor it has been shown that such power can be delegated for the aforesaid purpose and therefore the proceedings are vitiated. See Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Consequently, Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is quashed with liberty to proceed with the matter, if so advised. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.