District Collector Can Be Notified As 'Appropriate Government' Under Right To Fair Compensation Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a District Collector can be notified as the 'appropriate government' mentioned in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 

Justice Devan Ramachandran found that as per Section 3E of the Act, the State Government can notify a District Collector to be the "appropriate Government" and he shall then be deemed to be such Authority therefrom.

"As far as the contention, that the District Collector cannot be an "appropriate Government" under the provisions of the "Fair Compensation Act" is concerned, I am certain that it deserves to be repelled because, going by the proviso to Section 3E of the same, Government can notify a District Collector to be the "appropriate Government" and he shall then be deemed to be such Authority therefrom." 

The petitioners approached the Court assailing a notification issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act along with Ext.P36, which is the declaration issued by the said Authority under Section 19 of the Act on various grounds.

Advocate V.N.Sankarjee appearing for the petitioner argued that the District Collector is not the "appropriate Government" as per the Act and that the District Collector, in any event, can only be a requisitioning Authority and not the acquiring Authority. 

He also contended that the Collector can issue a notification for acquisition solely with respect to the properties within his territory and that the land mentioned in the notification takes in two different districts. 

However, Special Government Pleader K.V. Manoj Kumar opposed these arguments and submitted that Section 3E defines the words "appropriate Government"; and, under its proviso, makes it ineluctable that, on a notification to be issued by the Government, the Collector of the district shall be deemed to be "the appropriate Government". 

The Court was in complete agreement with the submission of the Government Pleader and thereby held that the District Collector can be the appropriate government for the purposes of the Act. 

Further, as pointed out the by the official respondents, the Act and the Rules thereunder render it luculent that "appropriate Government" is both the requisitioning and acquiring Authorities; and therefore it was held that when the District Collector is deemed to be such Government, he will obtain both such capacities.

Justice Ramachandran also observed that Rule 3(3) of the Fair Compensation Rules renders it perspicuous that when the land to be acquired is spread over more than one district, the requisition for it and its acquisition shall be made by the Collector of the district where a major portion of the said land is situated.

In this case, it was without contest and was expressly admitted that a major portion of the acquisition is required to be done in Alappuzha and that is why the notification was issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha. The notification could not be vitiated for that reason.

Upon evaluating the various paper publications and documents, it was indubitable that publications as mandated under Rule 18 have been made and that the petitioners have been served with individual notices, as required under Section 21.

Since the petitioners did not have a case contrary to this, the Single Judge took the firm view that nothing remains in this petition to be considered by this Court.

Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed and the competent respondents were allowed to continue with the project as per law, however, ensuring that every statutory right of the petitioners is implicitly protected and adhered to.

Case Title: Binoy & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

Click Here To Read/Download The Order