1975 (8) TMI 122 - SC - Indian Laws

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 Land Acquisition Act? Held that - We think that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the requirement of the rule was mandatory. We quash the proceedings of the Collector (Special Land Acquisition officer, 2nd appellant) under s. SA(2) as also the decision of the Government on the basis of the report of the Collector under the sub-section. The result is that the notification under 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Interpretation of rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules.
3. Determination of whether a provision is mandatory or directory.
4. Quashing of proceedings and notifications.
5. Timeliness of challenging the validity of notifications under section 4 of the Act.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court considered the validity of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents challenged the notifications on the grounds that the Education Department, on whose instance the land was sought to be acquired, was not given notice as required by rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules. The High Court upheld the contention, leading to the appeal. The main issue was whether rule 3(b) was mandatory and if the failure to issue notice to the concerned department rendered the notifications invalid. The Court analyzed the provision of rule 3(b) and its relation to section 5A(2) of the Act. It concluded that the rule was not ultra vires the section and held that the requirement of notice to the department was mandatory for a fair decision-making process.

Regarding the interpretation of whether a provision is mandatory or directory, the Court emphasized the importance of considering the intent of the law maker and the consequences of construing the provision in a particular way. It ruled that rule 3(b) was enacted to ensure all relevant materials were before the Collector for a well-informed decision-making process. Citing precedents, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the requirement of the rule was mandatory, leading to the quashing of proceedings under section 5A(2) and the decision of the Government based on the report.

The Court also addressed the timeliness of challenging the validity of notifications under section 4 of the Act. It dismissed the argument that the notification should be quashed due to lack of public notice or delay in sending the report to the Government. The Court held that the respondent should have challenged the notification within a reasonable time of its publication and that the appeal was filed after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating there was no ground for remitting the case to the High Court. The judgment in this appeal aligned with those in similar cases, with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the mandatory nature of rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules, quashed proceedings under section 5A(2) and the decision of the Government, and dismissed the appeal concerning the timeliness of challenging the validity of notifications under section 4 of the Act.