PETITIONER:
FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GUSTAVO RANATO DA CRUZ PINTO & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1985
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 736 1985 SCR (2) 937
1985 SCC (2) 152 1985 SCALE (1)394
ACT:
Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 Rule 4-
Whether compliance of Rule 4 is mandatory before issuing the
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 in respect of acquisition of land for the propose of a
company-Practice and Procedure-Where several contentions
factual and legal are urged in a case and where there is a
scope of an appeal From the decision of the Court, High
Courts and Courts below should not merely rest its decision
on one single point.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant made an application on the 15th
November, 1978 under chapter VII of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the lands earlier purchased
by Respondent No. 1 herein. The Government issued on the
29th October, 1980 a notification for acquisition of the
said land under section 4 of the Act which was published in
the Government Gazette dated 30th October, 1980. Respondent
No. 1 objected to the said notification. Subsequently the
Government bled an enquiry under section SA of the Act and,
after submitting a report in March 1981, on or about 10th
April 1981, the Deputy Collector issued notice to Respondent
No. I that enquiry under rule 4 of the Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules 1963 would be held on the 15th April, 1981
to which the latter filed his objections on merit by his
letter dated 4th May, 1981. On 26th October, 1983, agreement
was executed between the government and the acquiring
company. A notification under section 6 that the land in
question was needed for the purpose of development of
tourism, was published in the Government Gazette dated 27th
October 1983.
Respondent No. 1, thereupon, filed a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said
notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) quashed the said
notifications on the first ground alone namely, the
notifications were bad for prior non-compliance with Rule 4
of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963, and noted
that it was not necessary to deal with other grounds of
challenge. Hence the appeal by special leave-
938
Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back, the
Court
^
HELD: 1. ON a correct interpretation of the scheme of
the Land Acquisition Act, it is not necessary that enquiry
under rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963
must in all cases precede issuance of the notification under
section 4 of the Act. In an appropriate cash if it is
possible, enquiry under rule 4(1) may be held before the
issuance of the notification under section 4. But it is not
a mandatory requirement that it must precede the issuance of
the notification under the Act. [949B-C]
RAJA Ram Jaiswal v. Collector, Allahabad & Another,
(1980) 2 ILR Allahabad 269; conclusion approved.
Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay (now
Maharashtra), AIR 1960 SC 1203 at 1206, followed.
Abdul Husein Tayabali & Ors. v. State of Gujrat l
Ors., [1968] I SCR 597. explained and distinguished.
2.1. A consepectus of the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act as well as Land Acquisition (Companies)
Rules 1963 indicate that there are two purposes of
acquisition of land-one being for the public purpose and
other for the purpose of a company, In case of acquisition
for company, the appropriate Government has to satisfy
itself that such acquisition is needed and would be useful
also for public need. [943E-F]
2.2 Land Acquisition proceedings begin with the
publication of the preliminary notification under section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When the acquisition is
for a company the Purpose has to be investigated under
section SA (by hearing objections and disposing them) or
under section 40 necessarily after the notification under
section 4 of the Act. Under section 6 if the Government is
satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under
section 5A that any particular land was needed for public
purposes or for a company a declaration shall be made to
that effect subject to certain conditions stipulated
therein. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules 1963 provides that no declaration shall be
made by the Appropriate Government under section 6 of the
Act unless (i) the appropriate government had consulted the
committee and had considered the report submitted under the
said rule and the report if any, submitted under section SA
of the Act and (ii) further any agreement under section 41
of the Act executed by the Company.
To complete the acquisition proceedings notification
under section 6 of the Act is required. Section 6 of the Act
enjoins that the government has to be satisfied that the
land is needed for public purpose or for a company and after
declaration is made the acquisition is complete after the
award is made and possession of the land is taken when the
land vests under section 16 in the government free from
encumbrances. Section 4
939
does not require as such this satisfaction of the
government. The government might initiate acquisition
proceedings "if it appears" to the government that land is
needed either for public purpose or for a company. That
might appear to the government by enquiry aliunde or on a
petition or application made by any company. Whether the
need is proper or genuine that can be found by the
government subsequently after notice under section 4 of the
Act. An enquiry under rule 4 might be made before issuance
of the notification under section 4 of the Act but it is not
a sine qua non for the issuance of the notification under
section 4 to have an enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules. The
scheme and the language of the Act and the Rules do not
indicate that. Therefore, section 4 as such does not require
government to be satisfied, it is sufficient if it appears
to the government that land is needed either for public
purpose or for a complain. It may so appear to the
Government either by independent inquiry or from reports and
information received by the government or even from an
application by the company concerned. [943H; 944A-F]
2.3 It is undoubtedly true that a notification under
section 4 can be issued after enquiry under rule 4. But
under the scheme of the Act, the converse is not correct,
i.e., the enquiry under rule 4 must always precede
notification under section 4 of the Act, though enquiry
under rule 4(1) must precede action under section 6 of the
Act. Further certain matters which are required to be done
under rule 4 cannot be done before because the officer or
the person authorised by him would have no authority, unless
notification under section 4 is issued. [945G-H; 946A]
Rule 4(4) does not prohibit or forbid issuance of
notification under section 4 of the Act unless rule 4(1) has
been compiled with. If it is now insisted that there should
be no issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act
before enquiry under rule 4 then this sub-rule has to be re-
written by stating that no notification under section 4 and
no declaration under section 6 issued or made as the case
may be unless the requirements mentioned in clauses (i) and
(ii) of sub-rule (4) of rule 4 have been complied with. On
the contrary, it will be contrary to the scheme and purpose
of the acquisition proceedings because the compensation for
the acquisition has to be fixed under section 23 of the Act
keeping the market rate as or the date of F the issuance of
the notification under section 4 in view. If it be that the
enquiry as contemplated by rule 4 should also precede
issuance of notice under section 4 of the Act then that may
upset the fixation of the market value and escalation of
price with the passage of time between publication of the
notification under sections 4 and 6 would make acquisition
difficult. [945A.D]
3. In a matter of this nature where several
Contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is
scope of an appeal from the decisions Of the Court, it is
desirable as was observed by the Privy Council long time ago
to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the court
should, when dealing with any matter dispose of all the
points and not merely rest its decision on one single point.
[950A-B]
940
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 504 Of
1985
From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of
Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa) dated the 26th June, 1984, in
writ Petition No, 8 of 1984.
B. Zaiwala, Anil B. Divan, Usgaonkar, Ravinder
Narain, and Aditia Narayan, for the Appellant.
S.C. Desai, M.M Abdul Khader, Naunit Lal, Kailash
Vasdev, Mrs. Vinod Arya, and Miss A Subhashini for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted. This
appeal filed by M/s Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited
raises the short question as to whether compliance with rule
4 of
the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter
called the Rules) is necessary before issuing notifications
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
It appears that the land in question was purchased by
Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto hereinafter referred to as the
land owner and the original respondent No. 1 on 10th of
March, 1978. The original respondent No. 2 and the appellant
herein on the 15th November, 1978 made an application under
Chapter 7 of the Act for the acquisition of the said
properties. The government issued on the 29th October, 1980
notification in respect of the land in question under
section 4 of the Act which was published in the Government
Gazette dated 30th October, 1980. The land owner being
respondent No. 1 to this appeal objected to the said
notification under section 4. Subsequently government held
enquiry under section 5A of the Act and the Deputy Collector
submitted the report to the Government in March, 1981. On or
about 10th April, 1981 the Deputy Collector issued notice to
respondent No. 1 that enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules
would be held on 15th April, 1981. The respondent No. I
filed his objections on merit by the letter dated 4th May,
1981. On 26th October, 1983, agreement was executed between
the government and the acquiring company that the land in
question was needed for the purpose of development of
tourism. the government issued notification under section 6
of the Act which was published in the government Gazette
dated 27th October, 1983.
941
The petition under Article 226 out of which this
appeal arises was filed in the Bombay High Court by
respondent No. I challenging the said notifications under
sections a and 6 of the Act. The High Court of Bombay (Goa
Bench) quashed the said notification under sections 4 and 6
of the Act only on the ground that enquiry under rule 4 of
the Rules was not held prior to the notification under
section 4 of the Act. The propriety 1 and validity of the
said decision of the High Court are under challenge in this
appeal. The High Court, however, noted that the impugned
notification had been challenged on several other grounds
but in the view it had taken on the first ground namely that
the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act being
bad for prior non-compliance with rule 4 of the Rules, the
High Court felt that it was not necessary to deal with other
grounds. The petition succeeded before the High Court and
the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were
quashed. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the
High Court.
Under the scheme of the Act, it is necessary for the
purpose of acquisition of land first to issue a notification
under section 4 of the Act, whenever it appears to the
appropriate government that land in any locality is needed
or likely to be needed for any public purpose.
The purpose and object of the notification under
section 4 of the Act have been explained by this Court in
the case of Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of ,Bombay (now
Maharastra) and others thus:
“The purpose of the notification under section
4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a
view to finding out after necessary survey and taking
of levels, and, if necessary, digging or boring into
the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the
purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is
only under S. 6 that a firm declaration has to be made
by Government that land with proper description and
area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public
purpose or for a Company. What was a mere proposal
under S. 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite
proceedings for acquisition under the Act. Hence, it is
not correct to say that any defect in the notification
under S. 4
(1) AIR 1960 S. C. 1203 at 1208.
942
is fatal to the validity of the proceedings,
particularly when the acquisition is for a Company and
the purpose has to be investigated under S. 5A or S. 40
necessarily after the notification under S.4 of the
Act.”
This Court emphasised that when the acquisition is for
a Company the purpose has to be investigated under section .
A or section 40 necessarily after the notification under
section 4 of the Act. The land acquisition proceedings begin
with the publication of the preliminary notification.
Section 5A enjoins hearing of the objections and disposal of
objections. Sections 6 of the Act provides that if the
government is satisfied after considering the report, if
any, made under section 5A, that any particular land was
needed for public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration
shall be made to that effect subject to certain conditions
mentioned in the various sub-sections of section 6 of the
Act. After declaration under section 6, section 7 enjoins
the Collector to take order for acquisition of land. Various
steps for the actual acquisition are enumerated in
subsequent section of the Act which need not be set out in
detail. Section 16 empowers taking of the possession after
an award is made under section 11 and thereafter the land
shall vest in the government free from all encumbrances.
It is important to note that section 23 of the Act
deals with the matters to be considered in determining
compensation for acquisition of land and ht enjoins that the
market value should be determined as on the date of the
publication of the notification under section 4. In other
words section 23 pegs the market value of the land as on the
date of the notification under section 4 as one of the
factors to be taken into consideration in determining the
compensation to be paid. Part VII of the Act deals with
acquisition of land for companies. Section 41 of the Act
provides that if the appropriate government is satisfied
after considering the report, if any, of the Collector under
section 5A, or on the report of the officer making an
enquiry under section 40 of certain matters, the details of
which are not necessary for the purpose of appeal to be set
out, it shall require the Company to enter into an agreement
with the appropriate government providing for the
satisfaction of the appropriate government for certain
matters enumerated in different sub-sections of section 40
The said provisions need not be set out in detail.
Essentially the satisfaction and agreement with the company
arc to ensure that the
943
land in question will be put to such use which will be
useful to the A public.
Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the constitution of
the Land Acquisition Committee. Rule 4 is headed
“Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to
certain matters before initiating proceedings” and sub-rule
(l) of rule 4 lays down certain matters about which the
appropriate government has to be satisfied when the
acquisition is for the Company. Sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of
the Rules provides that no declaration shall be made by the
appropriate government under section 6 of the Act unless (i)
the appropriate government had consulted the committee and
had considered the report submitted under the said rule and
the report, if any, submitted under section SA of the Act
and (ii) further any agreement under section 41 of the Act
executed by the Company. Rule S of Rules deals with the
matters which are to be provided for in the agreement under
section 41 of the Act. Rule 6 similarly deals with the
additional matters which might be provided in the agreement
under section 41 of the Act. Rule 7 provides for submission
of periodical reports. Rule 8 of the Rules deals with the
conditions under which sanction is to be given for transfer
of land. Rule g deals with special provisions in relation to
certain Companies. It is not necessary to discuss these
rules in detail for the present purpose.
A conspectus of the provisions of the Act as well as
the Rules indicate that there are two purposes of
acquisition of land-one being for the public purpose and the
other for the purpose of a Company. In case of acquisition
for Company, the appropriate government has to satisfy
itself that such acquisition is needed and would be useful
also for public need. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for
satisfaction of the appropriate government with regard to
various matters before acquisition.
The learned judges of the Bombay High Court were of
the view that the enquiry under rule 4 was necessary for the
initiation of the acquisition proceedings to be satisfied
that acquisition was necessary for the Company.
We are unable to accept this conclusion for the
following reasons:
(i) To complete the acquisition proceedings, notification
under
944
section 6 of the Act is required. Section 6 of the Act
enjoins that the government has to be satisfied that the
land is needed for public purpose or for a Company and after
declaration is made the acquisition is complete after the
award is made and possession of the land is taken the land
vests under section 16 in the government free from
encumbrances. Section 4 does not require as such this
satisfaction of the government. The government might
initiate acquisition proceedings “if it appears” to the
government that land is needed either for public purpose or
for a Company. That might appear to the government by
enquiry aliunde or on a petition or application made by any
Company. Whether the need is proper or genuine that can be
found by the government subsequently after notice under
section 4 of the Act. An enquiry under rule 4 might be made
before issuance of the notification under section 4 of the
Act but it is not a sine qua non for the issuance of the
notification under section 4 to have an enquiry under rule 4
of the Rules. The scheme and the language of the Act and the
Rules do not indicate that. As noted before, section 4 does
not require government to be satisfied, it is sufficient if
it appears to the government that land is needed either for
public purpose or for a Company. It may so appear to the
government either by independent enquiry or from reports and
information received by the government or even from an
application by the company concerned.
Section 6 undoubtedly requires satisfaction of the
government and enquiry contemplated under rule 4 must
precede publication of the notification under section 6 of
the Act. So also there must be before section 6 notification
an enquiry under section 5A. The p significant pointer to
the scheme is provided in sub-rule (4) ‘of rule 4, the
material portion of which reads as follows:-
“(4) No declaration shall be made by the
appropriate
Government under section 6 of the Act unless-
(i) the appropriate Government has consulted the
Committee and has considered the report submitted under
this rule and the report, if any, submitted under
section 5A of the Act; and
(ii) the agreement under section 41 of the Act has
been executed by the Company.”
945
The said sub-rule significantly does not prohibit
or forbid A issuance of notification under section 4 of the
Act unless rule 4 (l) has been complied with. If it is now
insisted that there should be no issuance of notification
under section 4 of the Act before enquiry under rule 4 then
this sub-rule has to be re-written by stating that no
notification under section 4 and no declaration under
section 6 issued or made as the case may be unless the
requirements mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule
(4) of lure 4 have been complied with. We find no warrant to
do that. On the contrary, it will be contrary to the scheme
and purpose of the acquisition proceedings because the
compensation for the acquisition has to be fixed under
section 23 of the Act keeping the market rate as on the date
of the issuance of the notification under section 4 in view.
If it be that the enquiry as contemplated by rule 4 should
also precede issuance of notice under section 4 of the Act
then that may upset the fixation of the market value and
escalation of price with the passage of time between
publication of the notifications under sections 4 and 6
would make acquisition difficult.
An argument was sought to be built on the basis of the
heading of rule 4 which stipulates that “Appropriate
Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters
before initiating acquisition proceedings”. It is true that
before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings,
government had to be satisfied of certain matters mentioned
in the various sub-rules of rule 4 as well as various
provisions of the Act. Though preliminary steps for
initiation of acquisition proceedings are necessary and
those can only be taken by the authority of the notification
under section 4 as mentioned in the decision of Babu Barkya
Thakur v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) and Others,
(supra) the initiation of the acquisition proceedings for
all practical purposes begins after section 6 notification
Satisfaction is necessary for proceeding for acquisition
under section 6 of the Act but section 4 unlike section 6
does not require for the issuance of the notice to be
satisfied but it might act only “when it appears” to it that
the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any public
purpose.
Reading the Act and the Rules and keeping in view the
scheme of the Act, it is apparent, in our opinion, that
before the issuance of section 4 notification, there is no
requirement as such of compliance with the procedure
contemplated by rule 4 of the Rules. We are therefore unable
to subscribe to the view that
946
enquiry by rule 4 must precede the issuance of notification
under section 4 (1) of the Act. Furthermore as indicated
before certain matters which are required to be done under
rule 4 can not be done because the officer or the person
authorised by him would have no authority unless
notification under section 4 is issued.
Reliance was placed before the Bombay High Court and
before us in support of the judgment of the High Court on a
decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Husein Tayabali
and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1). There the
contention before the Court was that Master was only a
Special Land Acquisition Officer and not the Collector
within the meaning of rule 4. Furthermore, it was urged, in
any event, the notification in question did not ‘specially’
appoint him but was a general notification authorising all
the Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State appointed
not only before the date of section 4 notification but also
those who would be appointed in future It was further
contended that notification did not “appoint” but simply
authorised him to perform the functions of the Collector,
the State Government had not given any directions to him to
make a report as required by rule 4; therefore the enquiry
held by him under that rule and the report made by him was
invalid and consequently no notification either under
section 4 or section 6 could be validly issued. It was
urged, therefore, the section 6 notification was issued
without complying with Part VII of the Act and without the
valid consent of the State Government as required under
section 39(iii), that the acquisition was made malafide and
without application of mind to the relevant facts and the
acquisition did not involve any public purpose and the State
government was bound to give an opportunity Of being heard
to the appellants before taking a decision under section 5A
particularly when the report made by Master was against the
acquisition.
In this connection our attention was drawn to section
39 of the Act which provides that provisions of sections 6
to 37 (both inclusive) shall not be put into force in order
to acquire land for any Company unless with the previous
consent of the appropriate Government nor unless the Company
shall have executed the agreement therein after mentioned.
This section, in our opinion, has no relevance for
determining whether to be a proper acquisition, enquiry
contemplat-
(1) [1968] 1 SCR 597.
947
ed under rule 4 must precede issuance of the notification
under section 4 of the Act. In the decision of this Court
referred to hereinbefore, this question did not really fall
for consideration because there was compliance with rule 4
before issuance of the notification and the infirmities of
the enquiry under rule 4 urged on behalf of the appellants
were not established.
It was urged before this Court that the enquiry under
rule 4 was a quasi-judicial enquiry and therefore it was
incumbent on Master to give an opportunity to the appellants
to be heard. This Court was of the view that the rule
provide that an officer conducting the enquiry has to hear
the Company before making his report. Whether he was also to
hear the owners of the land or not did not fall for decision
in those appeals as the officer had in fact given such an
Opportunity to the appellants by serving them with notices
and recorded the statement of such of them who cared to
appear before him. It was then contended that the enquiry
under rule 4 had to beheld after the notification under
section 4 was issued and not before and therefore the
enquiry held by Master was not valid. This Court observed at
page 604 of the report “We do not find anything in rule or
in any other rule to warrant such a proposition. The
enquiry, the report to be made consequent upon such enquiry,
obtaining the opinion of the Land Acquisition Committee, all
these intended to enable the Government to come to a
tentative conclusion that the lands in question were or were
likely to be needed for a public purpose and to issue
thereafter section 4 notification In our opinion no
objection to the appointment of Master to perform the
functions of the Collector under section 3(c) or to his
competence to make the enquiry and the report under rule 4
or their legality can be validly made.”
In our opinion when this Court observed that the
report of the enquiry under rule 4 was a factor to be taken
into consideration and “to issue thereafter section 4
notification” was by general observation. It is undoubtedly
true that a notification under section 4 can be issued after
enquiry under rule 4. But under the scheme of the Act, the
converse is not correct i.e. the enquiry under rule 4 must
always precede notification under section 4 of the Act. In
that decision this Court analysed the importance of section
SA and it is after considering the report under rule 4 and
report under section SA that notification under section 6
will be issued. It is undoubtedly true that
948
enquiry under rule 4(1) must precede action under section
but we do not find reading the said decision of this Court
in the context of the facts and circumstances and the
contentions urged in that case that this Court laid down any
proposition that enquiry under rule 4(1) must precede
issuance of notification under section 4. Indeed as we have
mentioned before, notification under section 4 would
facilitate the matters to be inquired under rule 4(1).
Reliance was also placed on certain observations in
the case of General Govt. Servants Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd” Agra v. Wahab Uddin & Ors. Etc. Etc. 1 There
the scheme of the Act was analysed and what were matters to
be required under rule 4 of the Rules were mentioned. This
Court observed at pages 53-54 of the report as follows:
“No declaration shall be made by the
appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act
unless the Committee has been consulted by the
Government and has considered the report submitted by
the Collector under section SA of the Act. In addition,
under clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) of rule , the Company
has to execute an agreement under section 41 of the
Act. The above consideration shows that rule 4 is
mandatory; its compliance is no idle formality, unless
the directions enjoined by rule 4 are complied with the
notifications under section 6 will be invalid. A
consideration of rule 4 also shows that its compliance
precedes the notification under section 4 as well as
compliance of section 6 of the Act.”
It may be borne in mind in that decision the
notification under section 6 was quashed but notification
under Section 4 was not quashed though observations were
made about the purpose and the role of compliance with rule
4. Reliance was placed on the following observations at page
54 of the report:
“A consideration of rule 4 also shows that its
compliance precedes the notification under section 4 as
well as compliance of section 6 of the Act.”
It appears to us that the reference to rule 4 in the
context in which it was made was inadvertent. What perhaps
the Court want-
(1) [1981] 3 S.C.R. 46.
949
ed to convey was the need of compliance of entering into
agreement A under section 41 before the issuance of
notification under section 6 of the Act. Otherwise it
appears that there was no enquiry under rule 4 of the Rules
before issuance of the notification under section 4 yet the
notification under section 4 was not quashed. The
observation then in any event is obiter.
On the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that
on a correct interpretation, it is not necessary that
enquiry under rule 4 must in all cases precede issuance of
the notification under section 4 of the Act. In an
appropriate case if it is possible, enquiry under rule 4(1)
may be held before the issuance of the notification under
section 4. But it is not a mandatory requirement that it
must precede before the issuance of the notification under
section 4.
Our attention was drawn to a Bench decision of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Raja Ram Jaiswal v.
Collector, Allahabad & Another (1), where it was held that
it would not be right to say that a case where a company
makes an application for acquisition of land to the
Collector it was obligatory that the provisions of rule 4(1)
must be complied with before the Collector could issue a
notification under section x(1) of the Act. With this
conclusion we are in agreement, though factually the case
was slightly different in the sense that there the Collector
was authorised to make a notification under section 4(1) of
the Act and not the State Government as in this case.
Therefore, though there may be in certain cases compliance
with rule 4(1) of the Rules it was not mandatory that before
issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act there
should be an enquiry in compliance with rule 4(1).
In the premises in so far as the Bombay High Court
held that non-compliance with rule 4 before the issuance of
notification under section 4(1) of the Act is bad is set
aside.
As mentioned hereinbefore, since the issuance of the
notifications was challenged on several other grounds and
the High Court had not decided those grounds, we remit the
matter back to the High Court to decide those grounds- We
request the High Court to dispose of those grounds as early
as possible.
(1) [1980] 2 ILR Allahabad 269.
950
In a matter of this nature there several
contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is
scope of an appeal from the decision of the Court, it is
desirable as was observed by the Privy Council long time ago
to avoid delay and protraction of litigation that the court
should, when dealing with any matter dispose of all the
points and not merely rest its decision on one single point.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the
matter is being remitted back to the High Court, costs of
this appeal will abide by the result of the High Court
decision.
S.R. Appeal allowed
951