ivil Appeals Nos
1700  1827 and 1021 of 1973
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated the 17 7 1972 S 6 1972 and 8 8 1972 of the Mysore High Court in WPS NOS
1921196928691967  381569 respectively
L N Sinha Solicitor General of India M Veerappa Altaf Ahmad for the appellants in Civil Appeal No 170073
A K Sen K N Bhat for respondents 1 6  8 10 M Veerappa  Altaf Ahmad for the appellant
K N Bhat for respondents 1 7 M Veerappa for the appellants
R B Datar Jayashree Wad and Rajen Yashpaul for the respondent
1700  1827 of 1973 MATHEW J We take up for consideration Civil Appeal No 1827 f 1973
The respondents are the owners of the lands in question
371 They were sought to be acquired for the Regional Engineering College at the instance of the Education department of the State of Mysore
In a notification under section 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 section 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 impugned notification issued under Section 41 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard under Section 5 A of the Act
Hence the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes unnecessary
 The Special Land Acquisition officer Mangalore issued notices to the respondents stating that the respondents will be given opportunity to file Objections under section 5A of the Act pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No 768 of 1960
The respondents filed their objections and after an inquiry the Land Acquisition officer sent his report to the Government
The Government considered the report and over ruled the objections
This was followed by a notification under section 6 of the Act
The respondents challenged the above notification as well as the notification under section 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 3b of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules as in force in the Madras area of the State of Mysore at the time of inquiry under section 5A and that since the requirement of notice as enjoined by rule 3b was mandatory the failure to comply with that requirement rendered the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act invalid
The High Court by its order upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed the notifications issued under section 4 and section 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 3b 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 372 Of hearing of objections he the objector may adduce evidence or A address arguments to meet what has been stated in such reply and that the objectors will have an opportunity of urging before the Government that the reasons given by the Department in the reply to the objections should not be accepted
Rule 3 reads R 3 Hearing of objection a If a statement of 13 objections is filed after the due date or by a person who is not interested in the land it shall be summarily rejected
b If any objections are received from a person interested in the land 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 3b is inconsistent with section 5A2 or tilt reason that section 5A2 itself provides for making further inquiry which the Collector thinks necessary after considering the objections filed by the owner or the person interested in the land and to read rule 3b 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 section 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 5A2 says is that the Collector shall give the objector 
an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry if any as he thinks necessary
This does not mean that a rule cannot be framed by the rule making authority for the guidance of the Deputy Commissioner the Collector which would enable the Department concerned to place its view point before him when considering the objection under section 5A
The proceedings of the Collector are quasi judicial and it is only proper that he should be apprise of the attitude of the department requiring the land in the light 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 373 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 would be helpful to the Government in making the decision to have before it the answer to the objection by the department in order to appreciate the rival view points
We do not think that rule 3b 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 section 5A2 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 fatal blemish
The determination of the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory would in the ultimate analysis depend upon the intent of the law maker
And that has to he gathered not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature its design and the consequences which would follow from construing it in one way or the other
We see no reason why the rule should receive a permissible interpretation instead of a pre emptory construction
As we said the rule was enacted for the purpose of enabling the Deputy Commissioner Land Acquisition Collector to have 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 vs
Sub Collector of Palghat1 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 vs The State of Madras2is 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 section SA2 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 section 6 has to be quashed and we do so
But We sec no reason to quash the notification under section 4
We direct the Collector 2nd appellant to proceed with the inquiry on the basis of the objection already filed under section 5A after 1 AIR 1959 Kerala 343
2 1967 2 Madras law Journal 422
374 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 52 framed by the Government of Mysore under section 55 of the Act
That rule is similar to rule 3b of the Madras rule
For the reasons given in the judgment in Civil Appeal No 1827 of 1973 dismiss Civil Appeal No 1700 of 1973 also with the modification indicated therein and without any order as to costs
Civil Appeal No 1021 of 1973 The facts in this appeal are similar to those in the two Civil Appeals referred to above and the decision there will govern the decision here
But counsel for the respondent in this appeal said that the notification under section 4 should be quashed in respect of properties involved in this appeal for the reasons that public notice had not been given as required in section 4 of the Act that the report under section 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 section 4 was published on 13 41967
Objections were filed by the respondent under section 5A of the Act
The Deputy I I Commissioner submitted his report to the Government
The Government over ruled the objections
The notification under section 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 section 4 of the Act as the Writ Petition challenging the notification was filed after an unreasonable lapse of time
If public notice as required by section 4 of the Act was not given and that would per se vitiate the notification under section 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 section 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 section SA2 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 section SA and therefore the Deputy Commissioner will in any event have to send a fresh report to the Government
In this view we do not think that there is any ground for remitting the case to the High Court simply because the High Court failed to  consider these points
The appeal is dismissed with the modification indicated in the two appeals referred to above
No costs
PHP Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondents are the owners of the land in question
the land was sought to be acquired for an Engineering College at the instance of the Education Department of the State of Mysore
Section 4 notification was issued in the year 1960
After an enquiry into the objections filed under section 5A the land Acquisition officer sent his report to the Government
Government over ruled the objection and issued a notification under section 6
The Education Department at whose instance the land was sought to be acquired was not given notice as required by rule b of Madras Land Acquisition rules
The respondents field a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the validity or both the notifications on the ground that the Education 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 ground that if the Department concerned filed any reply pursuant to the notice issued the objector would know what the Department has stated by way of reply and at the stage of hearing of objection
tile objector might adduce evidence or address arguments to meet what is stated 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 accepted On appeal by Special Leave it was contended by the appellant
Rule 3 b is inconsistent With section 5A 2 for the reasons that sub section 2 of section 5A provides for further enquiry in the discretion of the Collector and rule 3b if treated as mandatory would be to convert the discretionary power into a mandatory duty and is therefore ultra vires the section
The provisions of rule 3b were not mandatory and that therefore failure to issue the notice to the department concerned was not fatal to the validity of the notification
 HELD 1
Section 5A requires the Collector to make a report after hearing the objections
It does not mean that a rule cannot be framed which would enable the department concerned to place its view point before the Collector when considering the objection under section 5A
The proceeding of the Collector are quasi judicial and it is only proper that he should be apprised of the attitude of the department requiring the land in the light of the objections filed
It would be helpful to the Government in making the decision to have before it the answer to the objection by the department in order to appreciate the riv view point
Rule 3b is not Ultra vires Section SA
372F H 373 A C 2
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
One has to consider the nature the design and the consequence which will follow from construing a provision in one way or the other
Rule 3b was enacted for the purpose of enabling the Collector to have all the 370 relevant materials before him for coming to a conclusion to be incorporated A in the report to be sent to the Government in order to enable the Government to make proper decision
The High Court was right in holding that the provision WAS mandatory
373C F The notification under Section 6 was quashed but the notification under section 4 was upheld
373 G CIVIL APPEAL No 1021 or 1973 The respondents raised 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 5A was not sent to the Government within the prescribed period
HELD The notification under section 4 was published on 13 4 1967
Objections were filed by the respondent under section 5A of the Act
The notification under section 6 was published in October 1968
The Writ Petition was filed in July 1969
The respondent was not entitled to challenge the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Act as Writ Petition challenging the notification was filed after an unreasonable lapse of time
The respondent should have challenged the validity of the notification under section 4 within a reasonable time of  the publication of the notification
The respondent knew of the notification and filel objections under section 5A of the Act
There is no substance in the argument that the report under section 5A was not sent to the Government within the prescribed period
In any event since a fresh enquiry is directed under section 5A the Collector will in any event have to send a fresh report to the Government
374D G