Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of S.5-A and the Rules deprives the State Government of jurisdiction to make a declaration under S.6. The High Court has the power to interfere under Art.226 in cases of administrative orders made in defiance of mandatory provisions of law and without jurisdiction.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Jurisdiction - S.5-A, Land Acquisition Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.5-A(1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, R.1, 3 and 4 of the Rules made by the Government of Madras under S.55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act - The judgment discusses the provisions of S.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder, emphasizing the purpose of providing an opportunity for the owner of the land to put forward objections to the proposed acquisition and for the Government to consider those objections. It highlights the mandatory nature of the provisions and the requirement for the Collector to give notice to the concerned department before the hearing of objections, and the consequences of non-compliance with these provisions. The judgment also refers to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Charan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R.1952 All. 752) supporting the view that non-compliance with S.5-A deprives the State Government of jurisdiction to make a declaration under S.6, and the power of the High Court to interfere under Art.226 in such cases.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, owner of a land, filed objections under S.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act against the acquisition of his land for a school. The Sub-Collector failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of S.5-A and the Rules by not giving notice to the concerned department and by fixing the date of the hearing and enquiry before the receipt of the objections. The appellant sought relief under Art.226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Sub-Collector's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of S.5-A and the Rules resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant. The final order and declaration made by the Government for the acquisition of the land were held to be without jurisdiction and illegal, and were quashed. The Court also emphasized the power of the High Court to interfere under Art.226 in cases of administrative orders made in defiance of mandatory provisions of law and without jurisdiction.
Issues: Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of S.5-A and the Rules, jurisdiction of the State Government to make a declaration under S.6, and the power of the High Court to interfere under Art.226 in cases of administrative orders made in defiance of mandatory provisions of law and without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of S.5-A and the Rules deprives the State Government of jurisdiction to make a declaration under S.6. The High Court has the power to interfere under Art.226 in cases of administrative orders made in defiance of mandatory provisions of law and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned judge of the Madras High Court was set aside, and the orders of the Government of Madras for the acquisition of the land were quashed. The appellant was awarded costs of the proceedings.

Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras dismissing an application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is the owner of R. S. No. 125/7 in Thaikad Amsam, Ponnani Taluk. His house is situated in the adjacent land, R. S. No. 125/12. Both these survey numbers, R. S.125/7 and 125/12, are enclosed by one fence all round and form part of the compound in which the appellant's house is situated. But a portion of R. S.125/7 has been leased by the appellant to one Appu for the purpose of conducting a school, known as the Thaikad South Higher Elementary School. There is a dispute between Appu and the appellant as to who put up the school building in R. S. No. 125/7 and to whom that building belongs According to the appellant, the building was put up by him and belongs to him and Appu has been allowed only the use of it. According to Appu the building has been put up by him and belongs to him. This dispute has led to a civil suit between them, and we were told at the time of the hearing of this appeal that the said suit is now pending in second appeal in the High Court. While that suit was pending in the trial court Appu moved the authorities of the Education Department to acquire 1.12 acres of land in R.S. No. 125/ 7 for the construction of a building and for a play ground and a garden for the school, and on the recommendation of the Education Department the Government issued a notification on 5-8-1952 under S.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire an area of 1.12 acres in the said survey number for the school. Notice was then issued to the appellant calling for objections, if any, under S.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the proposed acquisition, and in that notice it was stated that the enquiry under S.5-A would be held on 23-9-1952. On 23-9-1952 the appellant appeared with his pleader before the Sub-Collector of Palghat, who was the officer appointed by the Government to exercise the powers of Collector in this case, and filed a written objection contending that Appu had moved the authorities to make the acquisition out of spite towards him, that there was no bonafide necessity for the acquisition, that the proposed acquisition would cause much harm and inconvenience to the appellant as the land proposed to be acquired was part of his residential compound, and that if it was necessary to acquire any land for the purposes mentioned in the notification he (the appellant) was ready to give other suitable lands in the vicinity. According to the appellant, on 23-9-1952 he and his pleader also prayed to the Sub-Collector for an adjournment to enable them to adduce evidence regarding these objections but the Sub-Collector refused the prayer for adjournment. On 28-9-1952 the Sub-Collector submitted his report under S.5-A of this Act over-ruling the appellant's objections and recommending the acquisition. Thereupon, the appellant made a complaint to the District Collector of Malabar against the Sub-Collector's action. But this complaint also proved futile, and ultimately the Government of Madras published a notification, Ms. No. 2064 Education, dated 4th September, 1953, in the Fort St. George Gazette, Part I-B, at page, 632, dated 16th September 1953, ordering acquisition of the land as per the earlier notification of 5-8-1952. The application under Art.226 of the Constitution was for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records of the proceedings relating to the notification of the Government of Madras, Ms. No. 2064 Education, dated 4th September, 1953, and published at page 632 of Fort St. George Gazette, Part I-B dated 16th September, 1953, and quashing the proceeding and granting other appropriate reliefs.

2. The appellant's main contention in the application under Art.226 was that the Government proceedings and order for the acquisition of the land were without jurisdiction as the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(Ker) 14

Judges : KUMARA PILLAI,T.K.JOSEPHLonappan - AppellantVersusSub Inspector, Palghat - RespondentCase No : W. A. No. 58 of 1955 (M)Decided On : 01/09/1959Advocates Appeared : T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer; For Appellant A. Madhavan; For Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Judges : KUMARA PILLAI,T.K.JOSEPH
Lonappan - Appellant
Versus
Sub Inspector, Palghat - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 58 of 1955 (M)
Decided On : 01/09/1959
Advocates Appeared :
T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer; For Appellant A. Madhavan; For Respondent