9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication 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. - Civil Appeals Nos. 1700 & 1827 and 1021 of 1973 - - - Dated:- 21-8-1975 - RAY, A.N. (CJ), MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN AND CHANDRACHUD, Y.V., JJ. For the Appellant: L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, M. Veerappa, Altaf Ahmad, M. Veerappa For the Respondent : A. K. Sen, K. N. Bhat, M. Veerappa Altaf Ahmad, for the appellant. K. N. Bhat, R. B. Datar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisition officer sent his report to the Government. The Government considered the report and over ruled the objections. This was followed by a notification under s. 6 of the Act. The respondents challenged the above notification as well as the notification under s. 4 by a writ petition in the High Court. The respondents attacked the validity of the notification on the ground that the Education Department at whose instance the land was sought to be acquired was not given notice as required under rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules as in force in the Madras area of the State of Mysore at the time of inquiry under s. 5A and that since the requirement of notice as enjoined by rule 3(b) was mandatory, the failure to comply with that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and within the time prescribed in sub section ( 1) of s 5A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land, where such department is not the Revenue Department; Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry." l) The learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that rule 3(b) is inconsistent with s. 5A(2) or tilt: reason that s. 5A(2) itself provides for making further inquiry which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the objections filed. If the department requiring the land thinks, in the light of the objection, that the land sought to be acquired is not necessary for the purpose for which it was required to be acquired or that more suitable land is available in the vicinity, it is only fair that the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) is informed about it. The answer of the department to the objection filed by the objector, even if adverse to the objector, would, at any rate, enable the Collector to bring a more informed and rational approach to the controversy before him. The Collector has to send his recommendation to government on the basis of his finding together with the record of the proceedings for the ultimate decision by the Government. IT wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the relevant materials before him for coming to a conclusion to be incorporated in the report to be sent to the Government in order to enable the Government to make the proper decision. In Lonappan v.Sub-Collector of Palghat (A.I.R. 1959 Kerala 343) the Kerala High Court took the view that the requirement of the rule regarding the giving of notice to the department concerned was mandatory. The view of the Madras High Court in K. V. Krishna Iyer v. The State of Madras (1967) 2 Madras law Journal 422)is also much the same. 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, that the report under s. 5A was not sent to the Government within the prescribed period, that the High Court failed to pass upon these questions and that the case must therefore be remitted to the High Court. The notification under s. 4 was published on 13- 4.1967. Objections were filed by the respondent under s. 5A of the Act. The Deputy I Commissioner submitted his report to the Government. The Government over ruled the objections. The notification under s. 6 was published in the gazette on 19-10-1968. The Writ Petition challenging the validity of the notification was filed some time in July or August, 1969. We do not think that the respondent was entitled to challenge the validity of the notification under s. 4 of the Act as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
