The satisfaction of the Collector is essential for acquisition proceedings, and failure to adhere to the provisions of the Act and Rules will lead to quashing of acquisition proceedings.

1. Writ petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings on several grounds :

(1) The acquisition has been based on satisfaction of the Government and not the Collector.

(2) Before issuing Form III notice under Section 4(1), it should be notified in the District Gazette, but in this case, it has not been done. The notice in Form III has been issued and signed by the Special Tahsildar on 4.3.1996. Form III as printed shows that it should indicate the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) had been published in the District Gazette. Whereas, in the instant case, these portions are left blank and indeed, it could not be otherwise because the publication was effected only on 7.3.1996.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice under Rule 3(ii) is not in conformity with Section 4(1). What Section 4(1) demands or requires is the satisfaction of the Collector. Whereas, there is nothing in the notice issued under Section 4(1) which indicates the satisfaction of the Collector and therefore, if it is apparent from the notice that there is no satisfaction of the Collector, then the proceedings need to be quashed. When the sovereign power of eminent domain is exercised and property expropriated, the exercise of power shall be only by authority of law and not otherwise. It was submitted that even the form is not in accordance with Section 4(1). The blind adherence to the form would show the non-application of mind and absence of ‘satisfaction’ of the Collector.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents only to make his submissions with regard to the validity of Section 4(1) notice issued in Form III. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, 1995 (1) CTC 465 : A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2114. He submitted that Section 4(2), together with Rule 3(i), would correspond to Section 4 of the Central Act and Section 4 (1) and Rule 3(ii), which corresponds to Section 6 of the Central Act. Therefore, the words used in the form, “Whereas it appears that .” have perhaps been taken from the form used in the Central Act for issuance of notice under Section 4 and these words can really be ignored and are redundant. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, this notice can be split up into three parts and if the first part which deals with the requirement of acquisition of land is ignored, then the latter parts would indicate that the notice is issued under Section 4(1) which means that the Collector has been satisfied with the recommendations of the Special Tahsildar as per Section 4(3)(ii). Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the fact that the requirement of the Government regarding the acquisition of land is mentioned in the Collector’s notice cannot equate it to a notice issued by the Government indicating its satisfaction.

4. Section 4(1) clearly speaks of satisfaction. Without that, further proceedings cannot go on. In fact, in a case which will be dealt with later, this Court quashed the action of the Government in proceeding with the acquisition though the Collector had indicated that further action should be dropped. So, the Collector’s satisfaction is the indispensable factor to justify the acquisition. The record of satisfaction must be there in clear terms. The question is whether the notice ex facie should disclose satisfaction, or it is enough if the records disclose it.

5. In Ramchandra v. Govind , A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 915 , the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and its provisions fell for consideration. A combined reading of Section 5(3)(b) with Rule 2-A which prescribes the manner in which verification of a surrender by the tenant must be made: (1) It must be in writing. (2) It must be verified before the Mamlatdar. (3) While making such verification the Mamlatdar must satisfy himself in regard to two things, namely, (a) that the tenant understands the nature and consequen