STATE OF MADRAS Vs. PERIAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land acquisition proceedings in these case have been quashed on two grounds-- (1) that Rule 3 (b) of the rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Land acquisition Act had not been followed inasmuch as no notice was given to the objections as required by the rule to the Harijan Welfare Department at whose instance the acquisition was initiated; and (2) that there was departmental bias inasmuch as the same Tahsildar, who did the survey etc. , and initiated the proceedings, also held the enquiry under Section 5a of the Act. The acquisition in these cases was for providing house sites for Harijans.

(2.) WE are not impressed by either of the objections to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. There are hardly any facts to show that the respondents had in any way been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve notice on the harijan Welfare Department. The record shows that it was at the instance of the harijan Welfare Department that the proceedings were initiated for acquisition. But it is contended that if notice had been given to that department, it might as well have accepted an alternative site. That was only a mere chance. Notwithstanding the use of the expression 'shall' we are of opinion that the rule is merely directory and not mandatory. That was the view taken in W. P. No. 1099 and 11236 of 1961, which was accepted by a Division Bench of this court in Chockalinga Mudaliar v. State of Madras, represented by the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore, (1972) 2 mad LJ 196. One of us dealt with the matter thus:-

(3.) UNDER Section 4 (1), a notification is to be published to that effect whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) as we see from Section 5-A (1) may, within the time specified, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. The objection is to be made to the Collector in writing and the latter shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader, and after hearing of such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, shall make a report to the appropriate Government which shall finally decide. It is in the context of this scheme of things that the scope and effect of Rule 3 (b) will have to be determined. Rule 3 (b) says--