Compulsory acquisition inquiry need not include landowner notice where the statute reserves the preliminary stage to government control.

A preliminary inquiry for compulsory acquisition under Section 40 was held to be under governmental control and did not require notice to, or participation by, the landowner because the statute made no express or implied provision for it. The contrast with the compensation stage, where the Act expressly required notice and service on interested persons, confirmed that the legislature treated the two stages differently. The Collector's inquiry into compensation and award was also treated as administrative, not judicial, so prior disclosure of all departmental material was not required. The objections to both stages failed, and the declaration and proceedings remained valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inquiry required before the declaration for compulsory acquisition of land under Section 40 had to include notice to, or participation by, the landowner. (ii) Whether the Collector's inquiry into compensation and award was judicial in character so as to require disclosure to the owner of all information used by the Collector.

Issue (i): Whether the inquiry required before the declaration for compulsory acquisition of land under Section 40 had to include notice to, or participation by, the landowner.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed the initiative and control of the preliminary inquiry in the hands of the Government. Section 40 required the local Government to be satisfied by an inquiry held by an appointed officer that the acquisition was needed for a public work and that the work was likely to prove useful to the public. The provision contained no requirement, express or implied, that the landowner must be notified or heard at that stage. The contrast with Section 9, which expressly required public notice and service of notice to interested persons at the compensation stage, showed that the legislature intentionally treated the two stages differently.

Conclusion: The objection to the preliminary inquiry failed, and the declaration was not invalid on the ground that the owner received no notice of that inquiry.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector's inquiry into compensation and award was judicial in character so as to require disclosure to the owner of all information used by the Collector.

Analysis: The compensation inquiry under the Act was treated as administrative rather than judicial. The Collector's award was only a decision for the purpose of fixing the amount to be tendered, and it did not finally conclude the owner, who could seek a judicial determination by reference to the Court. In that administrative setting, the Collector was not bound by judicial rules requiring prior disclosure of all departmental material to the owner. The complaint therefore did not establish any legal defect in the inquiry.

Conclusion: The objection to the compensation inquiry failed, and the award was not vitiated on the ground alleged.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned declaration and proceedings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute places the initial acquisition inquiry under governmental control without providing for landowner notice, and separately provides express notice and participation safeguards at the compensation stage, the preliminary inquiry is administrative and need not include the owner; likewise, the Collector's award in such a scheme is administrative, not judicial.

---