Mandatory departmental notice in land acquisition inquiry vitiates consequential decision, but initial notification may still stand.

Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules and the corresponding Mysore rule were treated as mandatory and intra vires because Section 5A inquiry is quasi-judicial and the departmental notice requirement ensures all relevant material is before the Collector and Government. Omission to notify the requisitioning department therefore vitiated the Section 5A proceedings and the consequential Section 6 decision. A belated challenge to the Section 4 notification was rejected, and the delay in forwarding the Section 5A report did not justify broader invalidation. The Section 4 notification was sustained, the Section 6 notification and defect-based proceedings were quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh Section 5A inquiry after notice to the requisitioning department.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules and the corresponding Rule 5(2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Rules, requiring notice to the requisitioning department and an opportunity to answer objections at the Section 5A inquiry, were mandatory and intra vires the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) Whether the challenge to the Section 4 notification and the complaint regarding delay in forwarding the Section 5A report warranted quashing of the acquisition proceedings or remand.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules and the corresponding Rule 5(2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Rules, requiring notice to the requisitioning department and an opportunity to answer objections at the Section 5A inquiry, were mandatory and intra vires the Land Acquisition Act.

Analysis: The statutory inquiry under Section 5A(2) was held to be quasi-judicial in character, and the rule requiring notice to the department concerned was treated as a measure designed to place all relevant material before the Collector and the Government before a final decision on acquisition. The requirement was not inconsistent with Section 5A(2), because the rule did not convert a discretionary inquiry into something foreign to the section, but regulated the manner in which the Collector should conduct the inquiry and submit his recommendation. The provision was therefore construed as mandatory rather than merely directory.

Conclusion: The rule was upheld as intra vires and mandatory, and the omission to give notice to the requisitioning department vitiated the proceedings under Section 5A(2).

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the Section 4 notification and the complaint regarding delay in forwarding the Section 5A report warranted quashing of the acquisition proceedings or remand.

Analysis: The belated challenge to the Section 4 notification was rejected because the writ petition was filed after an unreasonable lapse of time despite the respondents having knowledge of the notification and having filed objections. The complaint that the Section 5A report had not been forwarded within time was also rejected because a fresh inquiry was directed in any event. On the acquisition process as a whole, the Section 6 notification and the Government's decision based on the defective inquiry were set aside, while the Section 4 notification was allowed to stand. The matter was sent back for a fresh inquiry under Section 5A after notice to the requisitioning department.

Conclusion: The Section 4 notification was sustained, the Section 6 notification and the proceedings founded on the defective inquiry were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh Section 5A inquiry.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld the mandatory character of the departmental notice requirement in the acquisition inquiry, but limited the relief by sustaining the initial notification and directing a fresh inquiry rather than invalidating the acquisition at its inception.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement in a land acquisition inquiry is mandatory where it is enacted to secure a fair quasi-judicial determination by ensuring that all relevant views are before the Collector and the Government; non-compliance with such a requirement invalidates the consequential decision founded on that inquiry.

---