LexSTATE OF MYSORE & ORS. versus V. K. KANGAN & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
D
F
G
H
STATE OF MySORE & ORS.
v.
V. K. KANGAN & ORS
August 21, 1975
3 ii9
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJI
Land Acquisition Act-Seclion 4, Sec. 5-A and Sectivn 6.
Afadras Land Acquisition Rules 3{b).
Afandatory or directory-Vaiidi1y of D notification whetl~er can be cliallt'llg-
ed after u111"l·t1so1ulh/e lapse of ti111e.
The respondents ar-e the owners of the land in question.
The land was
sought to be acquired for an E.ngineering C-ollege at the instance of the Educa-
tion Deparlment of the State of Mysore. Section 4 notification was issued
in the y>ear 1960. After ·an enquiry into the objections filed under section SA
the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the Government. Government
over-ruled the objections and issued a notification under section 6. The Educa-
tion Department at ,whose instance the land was sought to be acquired was not
given notice as required by rule 3 (b) of 1vfadras Land Acquisition rules. The
respondents filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the validity of
both the notifications on the ground that the Ed.ucation Department was not
consulted. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed
the.notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act on the ~round that if
the Department con~erned filed any reply pursuant to the notice issued, the
objector would kn<;>w what the Departn1ent has stated by way of reply and at the
stage of hearing of objections, the objector rni.ght adduce evidence or address
arguments to meet what is staled in such reply. The objector could further
urge before the Government that the reasons given by the department in reply
to the objections should not be <iccepted.
On apix:al by Speciitl Leave it was contended by the appellant.
1. Rule 3 (b) is inconsistent wilh section SA (2) for the reasons that -.ub-
section (2) of section SA provides for further enquiry in the discretion of the
Collector and rule 3(b) if treated as n1andatory' would be to convert the discre-
tionary po\ver into a mandatory duty and is, therefore, ultra ·vires the section.
2. The provisions. of rule 3{b) were not mandatory and that, therefore,
failure to issue the notice to the departn1ent concerned was not fatal to the
validity of the notifications.
HEW : 1. Si.'!ction 5A requires the C'Ollector to make a report after hearing
the objections.
It does not mean tha~· a rule cannot be framed which would
enable the department concerned to place its view point before the Collector \\1hen
considering the objection under ~>Cction SA. The proceedings of fhe Collector .
are quasi-judicial and it is only pro~r that he should Pe apprised of the· attitude
of the department requiring the land in the light of the objections .filed.
It
would be l1elpful to the Government in making the decision to have before it
the answer to the objection by the department in order to appreciate the. ri\-al
view points. Rule 3(b) is not ultra vires Sectoin 5A.
[372F-H, 373A-CJ
2. In determining the question whether a provision is mandaj:ory or directory
one n1ust look into the subiect matter and con'lidcr the importance of the provi-
sion disregarded and the relation. of that provision to the general object i'ntendcd
to be secured.
One has to consider the nature, the design and the co1,1seque111.:es
which will follow from Construing a provision in ·one way or the other. Rule
3(b) was enacted for th•.:- purpose o_f enabling the Collector to have a11 the
3 70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] I S.C.R.
relevant .materials before hin1 for coining to a conclusi'on to be
incorporated
1\
in the report to be sent to the Governn.le.nt in order to enable the Government
-.. ~
to n1ake proper decision.
The High Court was right in holding that the provi-
sion was mandatory. [373C-F]
The notification Under section 6 :was ciuashe<l but the notification under sec·
tion 4 ?'a' upheld.
r373-G I
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1021 or 1973
The respondents raised a further contention in the above appeal to the effect
that notification under section 4 should be quashed since the public notice as
required by section 4 is not given and _the report under section SA was not sent
to the Government within the prescribed period.
HELD:
The notification under ··5e;tion
4 was published on
13-4-1967.
Objections were filed by the respondent u.nder section SA of the Act. The notifi-
cation under section 6 was published in October 1968Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.