JUDGMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J.:— These three Appeals Nos. 967 to 969 of 1971 by special leave which are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated April 17/18, 1970 in Special Civil Application Nos. 116 of 1967, 1621 of 1967 and 1622 of 1967 arise thus:

Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of certain lands in villages Sayajipuri, Bapod and Savad, District Baroda, Taluka Baroda were initiated by the Government of Gujarat at the instance of Sardarnagar Co-operative Indiustrial Society Limited, registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate for small scale industries. The acquisition being for the Company, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on July 2, 1964 after following the provisions of Part VII of the Act. An agreement under Section 41 of the Act between the State Government and the Company was entered into on April 2, 1965 and was published on October 15, 1966. The final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on October 18, 1966. The owners of the aforesaid lands who are contesting respondents herein challenged the aforesaid notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the ground that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referredto as the Rules) made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 55 of the Act, which by virtue of Rule 1 (2) of the Rules apply to acquisition of land for all companies under Part VII of the Act, have not been complied with particularly as they had not been given a right to be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice at the enquiry held by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, appellant No. 2 herein. The plea raised by the owners of land found favour with the High Court which allowed the petitions, set aside the notification under Section 6 of the Act, and issued a mandamus commanding appellant No. 2 to complete the statutory enquiry under Rule 4 of the Rules in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

2. The short but important question which we are called upon to decide in these appeals is whether the enquiry under Rule 4 of the Rules requires compliance with the rules of natural justice.

3. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala, (1969) 1 SCR 317 and reiterated in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 457 rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its content should be for a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame work of the law under which the enquiry is held, and the constitution and nature of duties of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose. Let us, therefore, advert to the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules which require the appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings. The rule is in these terms:-

"4. Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings.-

(1) Whenever a Company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matters, namely:-

(i) that the Company has made its best endeavor to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of the acquisition;

(ii) that the Company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of re