The requirement of service of a copy of the preliminary notification under S. 4(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act is not mandatory and cannot be construed as 'shall'. The word 'may' has to be construed as 'may' only or permissive and directory only.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the appellants who were the respondents and is directed against the order dt. 2-11-1979 of our learned brother Venkatachala, j. allowing W. P No. 6594 of 1975 (Since reported in 1980 (1) Karnataka law Journal 362), filed by the respondents who were the petitioners.

( 2 ) LAND bearing Sy. No. 169/1 of ramanagaram village/town measuring 1 acre 20 guntas originally stood in the name of one Sidda son of Channamrna in the record of rights (hereinafter referred to as the RTC) maintained by the Revenue Department of Government. Sidda is stated to have died some time in 1967 and on his death respondent 1/petitioner-1 who is one of his sons has been recognised as the owner of the said land in the RTC, in the place of Sidda. In an authenticated extract of the RTC furnished by the tahsildar, Ramanagaram, the relevant entry of the same reads thus:- 1.

Survey number, Sircar of Inam and local name

169

.

of the Field, if any

169

2.

Sub-Division Number

1

3.

Description of Land, Total area deduct phut Kharab, balance. dry

1-20

0-00

.

wet or garden

1-20

4.

Area

1-20

5.

Assessment

1-15-0

6.

Jodi or Special non-agri-cultural Assessment.

.

7.

Name Person in Possession of Govt. land

or alienated land

1242b

8.

Nature of right

.

9.

Number in Record of

.

.

Rights

226

prior to 4-2-1975 and on that day, the entries in the RTC of the aforesaid land stood as above and there was no change in the same.

( 3 ) ON a requisition from the town Municipal Council, Ramanagaram, Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1984) as amended by the karnataka Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued preliminary notification No. RD 43 AQB 75 dt. 4-2-1975 published in Karaataka gazettee dt. 13-2-1975 in Part-IX proposing to acquire the aforesaid land for establishing a sweepers colony at ramanagaram. In that- notification, the name of the owner and person in possession (Khatedar and anubhavadar) was shown as 'channammana maga sidda' or Sidda Son of Channammana the said notification appointed the Assisantant Commissioner, Ramanagaram (hereinafter referred to as the AC) to perform the functions of the Deputy commissioner under the Act. Without notifying the respondents, the AC held an inquiry under the Act and submitted his report to government recommending for the acquisition of the said land. ,on an examination of the report of the AC, Government being satisfied with the necessity and public purpose, by its notification No, RD 250 aqe 75 dt. 13-7-1675 (published in the Karnataka Gazettee) dt. 31-7-1975) issued the necessary declaration or final notification under S. 6 of the Act, on the basis of which the AC issued a notice on 29-9-1975 to respondent-1 under S. 9 of the Act. In response to the same, respondent-1 and his brother one Ramachandra who is respondent-2 filed objections to the acquisition as also a claim statement before the AC.

( 4 ) ON 3-12-1975 the respondents presented WP. No. 6594 of 1975 before this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution, challenging the final notification issued by government under S 6 of the Act. On the same day. this Court stayed the proceedings which to be in force till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

( 5 ) WHILE asserting that they had not been served with a copy of the preliminary notification the respondents urged that they were entitled for service of that notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act as of right and that failure, without anything more, vitiated the acquisition proceedings, which was resisted by the appellants. On 3-11-1979 venkatachala, J. has allowed the writ petition of the respondents accepting their plea and has quashed the preliminary and final notifications issued by government. Hence, this appeal by the appellants.

( 6 ) SRI. M. R. Achar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has urged that the construction placed by the learned Judge on s. 4 (1) of the Act wa