Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD . The challenge in the writ petition is on the ground, that the acquisition proceedings have not been taken by the Collector and it is the Land Acquisition Officer who has taken all the proceedings of acquisition and thus, the Officer who has done all the exercise falls short of the authorization which his required with the person who conducts the acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the L.A. Act"). The petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagrup Singh and 3 others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in WLC, (RAJ) UC 2002 page 776 wherein this Court has held as under: - 12. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the Collector for the purpose of the Act ought to be either the Collector of the District, which expression includes a Dy. Commissioner of the Distinct, or he may be any other officer who is specially appointed by the Appropriate Government to perform the function as a Collector under Act. The key to the aforesaid provision is that the person, who is Collector of a District and includes a Dy. Commissioner, who alone by his office is envisaged to perform the function of Collector. In addition thereto any other officer can discharge functions which are required to be performed by Collector under the Act only if he is specially appointed by the appropriate Government viz. the Government which has issued the declaration under Sec. 4 of the Act.
(2.) THE respondents in the reply have come up with the answer that by a general notification which has been filed by the State in the case of Sajni Devi & others vs. State and Ors, (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 5571/2004) Powers of the Collector have been vested in the Sub Divisional Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer to exercise in the respective jurisdictions. This notification was issued by the State Government on 2nd of May, 1997. The notification is quoted hereinbelow: GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHANREVENUE (GR. IV) DEPARTMENTNo. F. 1(2) Rev/Gr.IV/86/12, Jaipur, dated the 2nd May 1987 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), the State Government hereby appoints all the Sub Divisional Officers cum Land Acquisition Officers, to perform the functions of Collector under the said Act within their respective jurisdiction. By Order of the GovernorSd/ -(Ashkaran Agarwal)Dy. Secretary to the Government. The State Government has also issued further clarification which has been communicated U.I.T. Jodhpur vide letter dated 23rd of May, 2005 that the Land Acquisition Officer has been authorized to act under Sec. 3(c) of the L.A. Act. The said letter is quoted hereinbelow:
(3.) PETITIONER in this context has relied upon many cases but one of the case which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the matter of Abdul Hussain Tayabali etc. vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in : AIR 1968 SC 432, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - 9. The contention was that though Master held the inquiry and made the report he had functioned not as the Collector but in his capacity as the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda and therefore, the notifications under Sec. 4 and Section 6 were invalid. The argument was, firstly, that R.4 does not define "Collector" and therefore, the word "Collector" must mean the Collector of the District and secondly, even if Master was appointed as Collector as defined in Section 3(c), his appointment as Collector was not valid and he was not specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. It was said that the notification dated October 11, 1963 did not "specially" appoint Master but was a general notification authorizing not only Master but all the Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State appointed not only before the date of Section 4 notification but also those who would be appointed in future. In our view, these contentions cannot be upheld. Section 3(c) defines a Collector to mean Collector of the District and includes Dy. Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, X of 1897 provides that where a Central Act and powers making Rules, the expressions used in such rules, if made after the commencement of that Act shall have the same meaning as in the Central Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. There being nothing repugnant in the subject or context, the word "Collector" must have the same meaning in the rules as in Section 3(c) which includes an officer specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. If therefore, Master can be said to have been specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act, no challenge can be entertained as to his competence to make the inquiry and the report under R.4 of the said Rules. Mr. Sanghi conceded that the notification dated October 1, 1963 did "specially" appoint Master as the Collector, Baroda, but argued that as that notification was superseded it would not avail the respondents and therefore, the question was whether the notification dated October 11, 1963 can be said to have specially appointed Master as Collector. He argued that since that notification appointed all the Special Land Acquisition Officers to perform the functions of the Collector within their respective areas the appointments made thereunder must be regarded as general and not appointments specially made and therefore, it cannot be said that Master or any one of them was specially appointed as required by Section 3(c). The argument therefore, resolves itself to what is the true meaning of the words "especially appointed". In our view, those words simply mean 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. It is the appointment therefore, which is special and not the person from amongst several such officers. Besides, Section 15 of the General Clauses Act provides that where a Central Act empowers an authority to appoint a person to perform a certain function, such power can be exercised either by name or by virtue of office. There would therefore be no objection if the appointment is made of an officer by virtue of his office and not by his name. Therefore, even if the meaning of the word "specially" were to be that which is canvassed by Mr. Sanghi the Government could have issued separate notifications for each of the Sp. L.A. Officers authorising them individually to perform the functions of the Collector within their respective area of jurisdiction. Instead of doing that, if one notification were to be issued authorising each of them to perform those functions, there could be no valid objection. Such a notification would have the same force as a separate notification in respect of each individual Sp. L.A. Officer. Such a notification would mean that the Government thereby appoints each of the existing Sp. L.A. Officers to perform the functions of the Collector within their respective areas. It is true that the notification also declares that such of the Sp. L.A. Officers who may be appointed in future are also authorised to perform the Collector's functions. That only means that whenever a person would be appointed as a Sp. L.A. Officer for a particular area, the notification would in effect invest him at the same time with the authority to perform the Collector's functions. The appointment of each of these officers therefore must be held to be special and not general. 10. But Mr. Sanghi argued that even so the notification did not "appoint" Master but merely authorised him to perform the Collector's functions. In our view, the distinction is without dirrerent. In the context of Sec. 3(c) when an officer is authorised to perform the functions of the Collector, it means that he is appointed to perform those functions. The clause does not contemplate a separate or an additional post. What it means is that some officer who is already in the Government employment is authorised to work as a Collector for the purposes of the Act. In this sense whether he is appointed or authorised to perform the Collector's functions he would be complying with the terms of that clause.;