Case: Abraham Mathai Vs. Sub-Collector (Land Acq. Officer) and Others

objections, if any, under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the proposed acquisition and in that notice it was stated that the enquiry under Section 5-A would be held on September 23, 1952. The Sub-Collector after hearing the appellant and his objections overruled his objections and recommended acquisition. The appellant thereafter made application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari and for other directions for quashing the proceedings and for granting other reliefs, on the ground that under Section 5-A the Sub-Collector was bound by Rule 3 to give notice of those objections to the Education Department at whose instance step for acquisition has been taken. It was held that the object of Rule 3(b) of the Rules made by the Madras Government under Section 55(1) of the Act for giving notice to the concerned department before hearing of objections filed under Section 5-A is not merely to give the department an opportunity to maintain or support its original requisition but also to provide n opportunity for the original requisition being reviewed or reconsidered by the department in the light of the objections raised by the owner of the land and other persons interested in it. 13. In State of Madras v. Periakkal (AIR 1974 Mad 383 : (1974) 2 MLJ 217 ) the land acquisition proceedings were started at the instance of the Harijan Welfare Department for the purpose of constructing houses for the Harijans. Notice of the date of hearing of objections filed by the respondent, owner of the land was not given to the Harijans Welfare Department at whose instance the proceedings for acquisition were initiated under Rule 3(b) of the Rules made under Section 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was held that under Rule 3(b) it is incumbent on the Collector to give notice of objection to the department requiring the land and copies of the objections had to be given to such other departments. This is for enabling the department to file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. This has to be done in order to give an opportunity to the department requiring the land to traverse the objections, if any filed by the person interested in the land, so that in the light of the reply of the department, a decision may be arrived at for the purpose of making the declaration under Section 6. It has been held that the rule being not mandatory it effect is that in the absence of service of such notice acquisition proceedings are not invalidated. 14. In State of Mysore v. V. K. Kangan ((1976) 2 SCC 895 : (1976) 1 SCR 369 , 371) 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 5-A the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the government. Government overruled the objections 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 3(b) of Madras 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 Education Department was not consulted. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed the notifications issued under Section 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 had stated by way reply and at the stage of hearing of objections, the objector might adduce evidence or address arguments to meet what is stated in such reply. The objector would further urge before the government that the reasons given by the department in reply to the objections should not be accepted. It was held that Section 5-A required 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 5-A. The proceedings 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 rival view-points. Rule 3(b) is not ultra vires Section 5-A. 15. It has been held that Rule 3(b) was enacted for the purpose of enabling the 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 proper decision. 16. Rule 3(b) is mandatory and non-service of the notice on the government department at whose instance the requisition for acquisition was initiated, the notification under Section 6 becomes bad and as such the same was quashed. This decision is not applicable to the instant case for the simple reason that the requisition was not made at the instance of the government department but at the instance of the Manager, private school and the Education Department merely has been a note certifying that the purpose of the requisition is a public purpose and that the school agreed to bear the entire costs. 17. In these circumstances it cannot be contended that the requisition has been made by the Education Department or by its officer for acquisition of the land in question. Therefore, in our considered opinion the ruling cited above is not applicable to the instant case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. In State of Mysore v. V. K. Kangan ((1976) 2 SCC 895 : (1976) 1 SCR 369 , 371) 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 5-A the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the government. Government overruled the objections 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 3(b) of Madras 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 Education Department was not consulted. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed the notifications issued under Section 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 had stated by way reply and at the stage of hearing of objections, the objector might adduce evidence or address arguments to meet what is stated in such reply. The objector would further urge before the government that the reasons given by the department in reply to the objections should not be accepted. It was held that Section 5-A required 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 5-A. The proceedings 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 rival view-points. Rule 3(b) is not ultra vires SectionIt has been held that Rule 3(b) was enacted for the purpose of enabling the 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 properRule 3(b) is mandatory and non-service of the notice on the government department at whose instance the requisition for acquisition was initiated, the notification under Section 6 becomes bad and as such the same was quashed. This decision is not applicable to the instant case for the simple reason that the requisition was not made at the instance of the government department but at the instance of the Manager, private school and the Education Department merely has been a note certifying that the purpose of the requisition is a public purpose and that the school agreed to bear the entireIn these circumstances it cannot be contended that the requisition has been made by the Education Department or by its officer for acquisition of the land in question. Therefore, in our considered opinion the ruling cited above is not applicable to the instant case