Case: Devinder Singh  Vs. State Of Punjab

Appellants herein are owners of various tracts of agricultural lands situate in Village Chak Gujran, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab. Respondent No. 5, M/s International Tractors Limited, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It intended to set up a project named. It requested the State to acquire lands in question in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,. A notification was issued by the State purported to be under Section 4 of the Act on 15.02.2002,it appears to the Governor of Punjab that Land is likely to be required to be taken by the Government at the public expense, for a public purpose namely for setting up of Ganesha Project, M/s. International Tractors Ltd. at Village Chak Gujran, Tehsil & Distt. Hoshiarpur, it is hereby notified that the land in locality described below is likely to be required for the above purpose.This notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to all whom it may concern.In exercise of powers conferred by the aforesaid section, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to authorize the officers for the time being engaged in undertaking with their servants and workmen to enter upon and survey any land in the locality and do all other acts required or permitted by that section.Any person interest who has any objection to the acquisition of any land in the locality may within thirty days of the publication of this notification file an objection in writing before the Collector, Land Acquisition Department of Industries & Commerce, Punjab, 17-Bays Building, Chandigarh.Objections having been called for, the appellants herein filed their objections in terms of Section 5A of the Act, inter alia,That the proposed acquisition by the Punjab Government is unconstitutional, uncalled for and against law and fact of the case, just in order to cause loss to the objectors and to give unlawful gain to other party, i.e., the proposed - Ganesha Projectors M/s. International Tractor Ltd.- - -7. That the acquisition of the proposed land belonging to the objectors is against the interest of the objectors keeping in view the policies of the State. The land in question is cultivable fertile land and the proposed project if any can be shifted some where else at some barren land as well as in the industrial zone according to Industries Master Plan and in this way, it is in the interest of the Pollution Control Department.- - -9. That the objectors are cultivating the land for the last over 25 years, it is consolidated at one place where in the objector has installed electric motors and planted popular trees around the fields. The objectors do not want that the land in question be acquired since it is against their interest and objectors are dependent on this Acquisition land. The Agriculturist/Farmer is entirely dependent on his land for his livelihood. There are various projects in the name of Escorts Tractors, Mohindra Tractors, Massy Furgon Tractors and so many other tractors companies/industries fulfilling the needs of the public and as such there is no need at all of the proposed industry to be set up in the lands of the objectors.10. That in any way the proposed acquisition is against the rules of the acquisition and the act itself keeping in view the interest of the objectors thus causing wrongful loss to the objectors and causing wrongful gain to the proposed objectors.Indisputably, a declaration was issued in terms of Section 6 of the Act and an agreement was entered into by and between the Company and the State on 27.02.2003.5. Writ petitions were filed by the appellants herein questioning the said purported acquisition proceedings praying, inter alia, for the followingQuash the notifications dated 15.02.2002 (Annexure P-2) and 27.02.2003 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondent No.1 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively.During the pendency of the said writ petitions, notices in terms of Section 9 of the Act were issued on 31.05.2004. An award was made on 18.02.2005. Allegedly, during the pendency of the said writ petitions, a sum of Rs.100/- was deposited by the State as a token amount for acquisition of the said lands inreason of the impugned judgment, the High Court opined:(i) The acquisition was for a public purpose in view of the report submitted under the Act, relevant portion whereof is ascase of M/s. International Tractors Ltd. the company has entered into an agreement with a Fresh company named M/s. Renault Agriculture France for manufacture of latest technology tractors. M/s. Renault Agriculture France holds 20% equity in the company. Production of these latest technology tractors will boost export, which will contribute to the general welfare and prosperity of the whole community. Therefore, in view of the facts and the relevant law as mentioned above, it is proved beyond doubt that the profits have actually gone to the generalAcquisition of the lands in question was not a colourable exercise of power.(iii) Acquisition was made in terms of the provisions contained in Part II of the Act and not Part VII thereof, as the State had also contributed a sum of Rs.100/- for the purpose of acquisition of lands.(iv) Execution of the agreement with Respondent No.5-Company and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act although were made on the same day, the same did not suffer from the vice of non-application of mind.(v) Respondent No. 5 being not a private company, statutory limitations contained in Section 44B of the Act are not attracted.(vi) Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (for short,being directory in nature, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions thereof.

Reasoning:
The approach of the High Court in this behalf, in our opinion, is totally erroneous. A provision of a statute is either mandatory or directory. Even if a provision is directory, the same should be substantially complied with. It cannot be ignored in its entirety only because the provision is held to be directory and not an imperativethis case admittedly there has been no compliance of Rule 4. If Rule 4 has not been complied with, the exercise of jurisdiction under Part VII must be held to have been erroneous.