AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.S. Jayakumar for the respondents. The question relates to
acquisition of land under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978 - hereinafter referred to
as ''the Act'').
Even though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with all such
contentions, as in my opinion, the contention relating to incompetence of the District Revenue Officer to exercise powers u/s 4(2) of the Act be
well founded and well supported by the decisions of this Court, merits acceptance.
It is not disputed that in the present case, the decision to acquire the land was taken by the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the provisions contained u/s 4(2) of the Act, only the District Collector can take the ultimate
decision relating to acquisition of lands. Even though, the District Collector may authorise any of his Officers to call upon the owner or any other
person to show cause as to why the lands should not be acquired, u/s 4(3)(a), the District Collector is required to pass orders as he may deem fit
on the cause so shown. u/s 4(3)(b), where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner, to show cause such Officer is
required to make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations and ultimately, the District Collector is required to pass us
orders. It is thus evident that u/s 4, the statutory authority is the District Collector. There is no provision that such power of the District Collector
u/s 4(2) or 4(3) of the Act can be delegated to any other authority.
Section 16 of the Act relates to delegation of functions. It specifically refers to the power of the State Government, where the State Government
can delegate any power conferred or any duty imposed on them, that is to say, on the State Government. Obviously Section 16 cannot be invoked
for the purpose of delegating statutory powers of the District Collector himself. This position is now clear by virtue of the decision of this Court in
the care of The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R. Manickammal 2002 (2) CTC 1.
In view of the above decision, the contention raised by the petitioner is acceptable. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the impugned
notification is quashed. No costs.