Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 27-09-2018 in case of petitioner name E.A. Aboobacker & Ors. vs State of Kerala & Ors.
| |

Land Acquisition for Infopark: Supreme Court Declares Special Tahsildar’s Role Invalid

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of E.A. Aboobacker & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., examined whether the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited (KRL) was legally authorized to act as a Collector for land acquisition concerning the Infopark project in Kerala. The Court ruled that the Special Tahsildar’s authority was limited to land acquisition for Cochin Refineries and did not extend to other projects like Infopark.

The judgment reinforces the principle that land acquisition must follow legal procedures, and government notifications must clearly define the scope of an officer’s authority.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the Kerala Government’s decision to acquire 177.79 acres of land in Ernakulam district for developing an Infopark. The government sanctioned the acquisition on 5 December 2005 and invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was issued, exempting landowners from filing objections under Section 5(A).

Among the landowners, the appellants, whose 23.92 acres of land were included, objected on the grounds that:

  • The Special Tahsildar (LA), KRL was not authorized to act as Collector for the Infopark project.
  • The government had issued no separate notification appointing the Special Tahsildar for this purpose.
  • Their objections under Section 5(A) were ignored, violating their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Proceedings Before the Kerala High Court

The landowners filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging the acquisition. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling:

  • The Special Tahsildar (LA), KRL was competent to act as Collector for Ernakulam district.
  • Since public interest was involved, technical objections could not derail the land acquisition process.

The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (E.A. Aboobacker & Others)

The appellants argued:

  • The government notification dated 21 August 1989 appointed the Special Tahsildar (LA), KRL only for Cochin Refineries, not for other acquisitions.
  • The government’s failure to issue a fresh notification for Infopark made the acquisition legally invalid.
  • Land acquisition must strictly follow statutory requirements and cannot be justified based on public interest alone.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Kerala & Infopark)

The State of Kerala and Infopark defended the acquisition, stating:

  • The notification authorized the Special Tahsildar (LA), KRL to act as Collector for the entire Ernakulam district.
  • Public interest required a liberal interpretation of the notification.
  • The High Court had correctly held that technical objections should not derail a large-scale development project.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the notification and concluded:

  • “A government notification must be clear and specific in defining an officer’s powers.”
  • “The notification only empowered the Special Tahsildar (LA), KRL for Cochin Refineries, not for Infopark or any other project.”
  • “Public interest cannot override statutory requirements for land acquisition.”
  • “The District Collector cannot independently appoint a Special Tahsildar as Collector without a proper government order.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled:

  • The Special Tahsildar (LA), KRL had no legal authority to act as Collector for Infopark.
  • The land acquisition process was legally flawed and could not be sustained.
  • The State must follow proper legal procedures if it still wishes to acquire the land.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching implications:

  • Land acquisition notifications must clearly define the officer’s powers and scope.
  • Public interest cannot override legal procedures in land acquisition.
  • The State must issue fresh notifications for each project instead of relying on past appointments.
  • The judgment strengthens landowners’ rights and prevents arbitrary acquisitions.

By reinforcing the importance of legal compliance, the Supreme Court ensured that land acquisition processes respect citizens’ rights while enabling infrastructure development.


Petitioner Name: E.A. Aboobacker & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Kerala & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Ernakulam, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 27-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: E.A. Aboobacker & Or vs State of Kerala & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts