9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Engineering College at the instance of the Education department of the State of Mysore. In a notification under s. 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 cases, the provisions of s. SA 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued under s. 4 and s. 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. The only point which arises for consideration is whether the pro visions of rule 3(b) were mandatory and therefore 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. 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 obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as casting a mandatory duty upon him to give notice of the objection to the department requiring the land and to consider the answer to the objection, if any, filed by the Department would be contrary to the section. The argument was that when sub-section (2) of s. 5A provides for further inquiry in the discretion of the Collector a rule making it mandatory that the Deputy Commissioner (the Collector) should give notice of the objection to the department concerned and consider its answer to the objection would be to convert a discretionary power into a mandatory duty and is therefore ultra vires 1 the section. We do not think that the contention is right. What the material provision of s 5A(2) says is that "the Collector shall give the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the rival view points. We do not think that rule 3(b) was ultra vires. the section. We also think that the government when it framed the rule had in mind that the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) should follow it while functioning under s. 5A(2) and so the requirement of the rule was mandatory. In determining the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory, one must look into the subject matter and consider the importance of the provision disregarded and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured. No doubt, all laws are mandatory in the sense they impose the duty to obey on those who come within its purview. But it does not follow that every departure from it shall taint the proceedings with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 6 has to be quashed and we do so. But we sec no reason to quash the notification under s. 4. We direct the Collector (2nd appellant) to proceed with the inquiry on the basis of the objection already filed under s. 5A after giving notice to the department concerned viz., the Education Department and after allowing it an opportunity to file an answer to the objection. We dismiss the appeal subject to the modification indicated. No costs. The facts and circumstances in Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 1973 are similar to those in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 1973, the only difference being that the rule which falls to be considered is rule 5(2) framed by the Government of Mysore under s. 55 of the Act. That rule is similar to rule 3(b) of the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given and that would per se vitiate the notification under s. 4, the ' appellant should have challenged its validity within a reasonable time of the publication of the notification. The respondent knew of the notification and filed objection under s. 5 of the Act. In these circumstances we see no reason to accept the submission of counsel. We also see no substance in the argument of the counsel that the report drawn up under s. SA(2) was not sent to the Government within the time prescribed and therefore the proceedings were invalid. We have directed a fresh inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) under s. SA and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner will in any event have to send a fresh report to the Government. In this view we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
