ABOOBACKER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference is made by the learned Judge for an authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in view of the conflicting views taken by this court in Jameson v. State of Kerala, 2006 (3) KLT 186 and in Narayani Amma v. Special Tahsildar, 2008 (2) KLT 206 .

(2.) In Jameson's case (cited supra) this court decided that R.16A of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 is ultra vires to the extent it insists that every application for reference to the courts, both under S. 18(1) and 28 A(3), shall be made in Form No.22 A. In Narayani Amma's case (cited supra) a learned Judge of this Court took the view that, from 1.9.2008 onwards the Land Acquisition Officers shall insist that application under S. 18(1) and 22A(3) shall be submitted in Form No.22A, supported by informations prescribed by the Schedules in Form Nos. 16 and 17. Since the above views are conflicting each other, pronouncement of a Division Bench is sought for.

(3.) In Jameson's case the learned Judge had taken note of the fact that S.I 8 does not provide for any form in which an application for reference is to be made. In other words an application for reference could be submitted in any form the claimant chooses, provided that necessary ingredients constituting a reason for reference is to be made out in the application. With respect to R. 16A which insist for filing of such applications in Form 22A, the learned Judge had examined the scope of the rule making power conferred to the appropriate Governments. Referring to S.55 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was observed that the appropriate Government shall have power to make rules consistent with the Act for guidance of the officers in all matters connected with its enforcement. Analysing that the insistence of a particular form with respect to an application for reference is against the provisions of S. 18 of the Act, particularly against sub-s.(2) of S. 18 of the Act, it was observed that even if an application for reference does not conform to Form 22A, it cannot be said that the application for reference is defective. It is found that the rule making authority has not been conferred with power to prescribe such a form in view of the specific provisions of S. 18. The insistence in R. 16A to the extent that the applications should be filed in Form 22A is ultra vires of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the rule making power under S.55 does not empower the Government to make such a rule, is the finding.