PADMANABHAN Vs. APPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS I read the section, the grant of a certificate by the Collector under S.14 of Act 1 of 1964 is not a quasi-judicial act. It is purely an administrative act, and, notwithstanding the difference in terminology, analogous to the grant of consent under S.92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the purpose in both cases being to ensure that frivolous proceedings are not instituted. The grant of the certificate by the Collector involves no adjudication whatsoever. The adjudication is by the Land Tribunal before which an application is made under S.22, and, before ordering resumption, the Land Tribunal has to satisfy itself that every one of the elements required by S.14, including the certificate by the Collector, obtains. The Collector's certificate is not merely not conclusive, it is not even relevant so far as any of the elements other than the existence of the certificate is concerned.

(2.) I might add that the certificate in this case was granted after giving the petitioner a full hearing through an advocate, and, even if it be that the Tahsildars report on which the Collector relies was not made available to the petitioner so that he could not meet it, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice having regard to the nature of the Collector's function.