THAKUR MADAN PAL SINGH Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order passed by the Tehsildar of Padrauna (Requisitioning Authority) district Deoria, respondent no. 1 under Section 3 of the United Provinces Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requisitioning certain plots of the petitioners for a public purpose. It is this order which has been sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT has been urged by counsel for the petitioners relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Brij Kishore v. Tahsildar, 1980 AWC 246 that the order of requisition is invalid inasmuch as respondent no. 1 had not been validly appointed as the Requisitioning Authority. The basis for this submission is that only such a person could be appointed a Requisitioning Authority by the State Government under Section 2 of the Act who was either a Collector or an Assistant Collector nominated by the Collector. According to counsel for the petitioners since respondent no. 1 had never been nominated by the Collector the notification of the year 1960 whereby all the Tehsildars exercising the powers of an Assistant Collector were appointed as the Requisitioning Authorities was not sufficient in the eye of law to confer upon respondent no. 1 the power of a Requisitioning Authority. Similar was the case in Brij Kishore's case (supra) also and the order passed under Section 3 of the Act in that case was also quashed on the ground urged by counsel for the petitioners. A counter affidavit as also a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Zila Parishad, respondent No. 4, for whose benefit the plots of the petitioners were sought to be requisitioned by the impugned notice. annexure I to the supplementary counter-affidavit is a document which according to counsel for the Zila Parishad contains the requisite nomination by the Collector contemplated by Section 2 of the Act in favour of Tehsildar Padrauna. Annexure I to the supplementary counter-affidavit is a letter dated 11th February, 1974, addressed by the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deoria, to the Collector, Deoria, requesting him to issue a direction to the Tahsildar, Padrauna, for talcing steps of requisition for purpose of completing the construction of a road. There is an order on that letter by the Collector addressed to the Tahsildar, Padrauna, saying that in public interest it was necessary to take immediate steps on the concerned subject and that necessary steps may be taken atonce. The exact words in vernacular are "Janhit Me Ullikhit Vishay Par Tatkal Karyawahi Avashyak Hai Kripya Turant Kadam Uthaye." On its basis it was urged that the relevant notification issued by the government in the year 1960 read with this order of the Collector conforms with the requirement of Section 2 of the Act in the matter of appointment of Requisitioning Authority. For the petitioners on the other hand it has been urged firstly, that the order of the Collector does not amount to any nomination as contemplated by Section 2 of the Act, and secondly, even if it did since it was not prior to the notification issued in the year 1960 but long thereafter it cannot be taken as sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 2. We shall consider the second submission first. In this connection it would be necessary to refer to Section 2 (1) of the Act which reads : "Compensation Officer" and "Requisitioning Authority" means the Compensation Officer and the Requisitioning Authority appointed as such by general or special order by the State Government provided that such person shall be the Collector or an Assistant Collector nominated by the Collector." The proviso contained in sub section (1) of Section 2 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that it is either the Collector or an Assistant Collector who has been nominated by the Collector who alone can be appointed as a Requisitioning Authority by the State Government either by a general or special order. On the plain language of sub-section (1) of Section 2 the nomination by the Collector has to precede the appointment by the State Government. Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Section 16 of the Act makes explicit what was implicit m Section 2. The said rule reads as follows :- "A Collector may nominate any Assistant Collector subordinate to him to be appointed a Requisitioning Authority or a Compensation Officer for the district, and thereupon the State Government may appoint such officer to be Requisitioning Authority or a Compensation Officer." The words "thereupon" and "such" used in Rule are of significance. These two words unequivocally indicate that the appointment by the State Government of an Assistant Collector as a Requisitioning Authority can be made only after the Collector has made the necessary nomination and the appointment has to be only of such officer who has been so nominated. This is the view which has been taken in Brij Kishore's case (Supra) also with which we respectfully agree. As such it is not necessary to consider the alternative argument that the order of the Collector does not amount to nomination.

(3.) LASTLY it was urged by counsel for the Zila Parishad that even if the appointment of respondent no. 1 as Requisitioning Authority was bad the action of the said authority in issuing the impugned order under Section 3 of the Act cannot be challenged. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1473 where it was held :