Permissive reference and mandatory Gazette notice: procedural breach does not void proceedings without shown prejudice.

Permissive statutory language does not make a local inspection report automatically obligatory; where the Act and Rules use "may be referred," the Special Tribunal or Special Court can decide on pleadings, documents and evidence already on record unless the facts call for verification. By contrast, post-cognizance publication of notice in the Gazette is mandatory as a procedural safeguard for interested persons, but non-publication does not by itself invalidate the proceedings unless prejudice is shown. Actual notice, filing of replies and participation may negate any claim of prejudice. The stated principle is that breach of a mandatory procedural step will not nullify proceedings where its object is not frustrated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to refer an application or case to the Mandal Revenue Officer for local inspection or verification before taking cognizance under the Act and Rules. (ii) Whether publication of notice in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette after taking cognizance is mandatory and, if so, whether non-publication vitiates the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether it is mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to refer an application or case to the Mandal Revenue Officer for local inspection or verification before taking cognizance under the Act and Rules.

Analysis: Sections 7A and 8 of the Act do not themselves require a reference to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Rule 6 uses the expression "may be referred", and the object of the reference is to assist the Tribunal or Court in arriving at a correct decision by obtaining local verification and revenue records. The provision is intended to aid adjudication and the Tribunal or Court may decide the matter on the basis of pleadings, documents, and evidence already before it where a reference is unnecessary. The power is therefore not coupled with an invariable duty in every case, though the facts of a particular case may justify such a reference.

Conclusion: It is not invariably mandatory to call for a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer.

Issue (ii): Whether publication of notice in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette after taking cognizance is mandatory and, if so, whether non-publication vitiates the proceedings.

Analysis: The provisos to Section 7A(4) and Section 8(6) and Rule 7 require publication of notice after cognizance so that persons interested in the land, including those not impleaded, may appear and protect their rights. The requirement is mandatory, but it is a procedural safeguard meant for the benefit of persons affected by the proceedings. A breach of such a procedural requirement does not automatically invalidate the proceedings unless prejudice is shown. Where the parties had actual notice, filed replies, and participated in the proceedings, no prejudice is caused by the omission.

Conclusion: Publication of notice is mandatory, but non-publication does not vitiate the proceedings absent prejudice to the party complaining.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was set aside and the writ matters were remitted for fresh consideration on the remaining question whether reference to the Mandal Revenue Officer was necessary on the facts of the cases.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement enacted to facilitate fair adjudication may be mandatory in form, but its breach will not nullify proceedings unless the object of the provision is frustrated and prejudice is shown; a statutory power expressed in permissive language is not automatically obligatory unless the context and purpose so require.

---