TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (8) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y were sought to be acquired for the Regional Engineering College at the instance of the Education department of the State of Mysore. In a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) dated 5-1-1960 and published in the Mysore Gazette dated 5-5-1960, it was stated that in view of the urgency of the cases, the provisions of s. SA of the Act shall not apply to the case. The respondents challenged the notification in a writ petition (No. 768 of 1960). When the writ petition came up for final disposal, a memo was produced on behalf of the State Government and the Court, On the basis of the Memo, dismissed the writ petition. The memo was to this effect: - &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the respondents and quashed the notifications issued under s. 4 and s. 6 of the Act. It is against this order that the appeal has been filed by special leave by the State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition officer, Mangalore. The only point which arises for consideration is whether the pro visions of rule 3(b) were mandatory and therefore the failure to issue the notice to the department concerned as enjoined by the rule was fatal to the validity of the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The reasons which impelled the High Court to come to that conclusion were, if the Department to which a notice is issued files any reply by way of answer to the objections, the objector will know what the Department has state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the person interested in the land and to read rule 3(b) as casting a mandatory duty upon him to give notice of the objection to the department requiring the land and to consider the answer to the objection, if any, filed by the Department would be contrary to the section. The argument was that when sub-section (2) of s. 5A provides for further inquiry in the discretion of the Collector a rule making it mandatory that the Deputy Commissioner (the Collector) should give notice of the objection to the department concerned and consider its answer to the objection would be to convert a discretionary power into a mandatory duty and is therefore ultra vires 1 the section. We do not think that the contention is right. What the material provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....swer to the objection by the department in order to appreciate the rival view points. We do not think that rule 3(b) was ultra vires. the section. We also think that the government when it framed the rule had in mind that the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) should follow it while functioning under s. 5A(2) and so the requirement of the rule was mandatory. In determining the question whether a provision is mandatory or directory, one must look into the subject matter and consider the importance of the provision disregarded and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured. No doubt, all laws are mandatory in the sense they impose the duty to obey on those who come within its purview. But it does not follow th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the sub-section. The result is that the notification under s. 6 has to be quashed and we do so. But we sec no reason to quash the notification under s. 4. We direct the Collector (2nd appellant) to proceed with the inquiry on the basis of the objection already filed under s. 5A after giving notice to the department concerned viz., the Education Department and after allowing it an opportunity to file an answer to the objection. We dismiss the appeal subject to the modification indicated. No costs. The facts and circumstances in Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 1973 are similar to those in Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 1973, the only difference being that the rule which falls to be considered is rule 5(2) framed by the Government of Mysore under s.....