Judgement

MATHEW J. :- Civil Appeals Nos. 1700 and 1827 of 1973.

We take up for consideration Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 1973. The respondents are the owners of the lands in question. They were sought to be acquired for the Regional Engineering College at the instance of the Education Department of the State of Mysore. In a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act ) dated 5-1-1960 and published in the Mysore Gazette dated 5-5-1960, it was stated that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the case. The respondents challenged the notification in a writ petition (No. 768 of 1960): When the writ petition came up for final disposal, a memo was produced on behalf of the State Government and the Court, on the basis of the Memo: dismissed the writ petition. The memo was to this effect :

"The respondent agrees to modify the impugned notification issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard under Section 5-A of the Act. Hence the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes unnecessary.

" The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore, issued notices to the respondents stating that the respondents will be given opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 768 of 1960. The respondents filed their objections and after an inquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the, Government. The Government considered the report and overruled the objections. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The respondents challenged the above notification as well as the notification under Section 4 by a writ petition in the High Court.

2. The respondents attacked the validity of the notifications on the ground that the Education Department at whose instance the land was sought to be acquired was not given notice as required under Rule 3 (b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules as in force in the Madras area of the State of Mysore at the time of inquiry under Section 5-A and that since the requirement of notice as enjoined by Rule 3 (b) was mandatory, the failure to comply with that requirement rendered the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act invalid.

3. The High Court by its order upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed the notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act. It is against this order that the appeal has been filed by special leave by the State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore.

4. The only point which arises for consideration is whether the provisions of Rule 3 (b) were mandatory and therefor. the failure to issue the notice to the department concerned as enjoined by the rule was fatal to the validity of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

5. The reasons which impelled the High Court to come to that conclusion were, if the Department to which a notice is issued files any reply by way of answer to the objections, the objector will know what the Department has stated by way of reply and at the stage of hearing of objections, he (the objector) may adduce evidence or address argument to meet what has been stated in such reply and that the objectors will have an opportunity of urging before the Government that the reason given by the Department in the reply to the objections should not be accepted.

6. Rule 3 reads :

R. 3 Hearing of objection (a) If a statement of objections: (a) If a statement of objections (is?) filed after the due date or by a person who is not interested in the land it shall be summarily rejected.

(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-sec. (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company req