JUDGMENT
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the verdict of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9834 of 1989. The petitioner in the Writ Petition are the appellants in the writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we refer to the appellants as Petitioners’ in this pronouncement of ours.
2. The petitioners by preferring the writ petition challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as “the Act” initiated by notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Before the learned single? Judge who heard the writ petition, three broad contentions were urged as follows:
(1) Earlier, the acquisition proceedings taken were dropped and therefore, the present acquisition proceedings is an arbitrary action.
(2) There was non-compliance with the mandates of Section 5-A of the Act and that vitiated the acquisition proceedings and
(3) The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not made within the time prescribed and that; also vitiated the acquisition proceedings.
The learned single Judge analysed the three contentions raised before him and took the view that they do not require countenance and as a result, he dismissed the writ petition.
3. Mr. E. Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners/appellants herein would canvass the very same three contentions before us in this Writ Appeal directed against the verdict of the learned single Judge. Learned Counsel for the petitioners was concentrating on the second contention with reference to non- compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act and would expatiate the contention by submitting that Rule 3 (b) of the Rules formulated by the State pursuant to powers reserved under Section 55 of the Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” having relevance to Section 5-A of the Act, has been violated not only in letter but also in spirit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners was fair enough to concede that this point was not taken before the learned single Judge in the manner in which it is being taken before us. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that to obviate any adverse comment against his clients for not urging this contention in the manner in which it is being done before us; the petitioners have taken Writ Appeal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1192 of 1993 to raise additional grounds. We find such contention or ground in fact has been raised in the Writ Appeal Miscellaneous Petition referred to above. The contention being a legal one, we do not want to shut out the contention from consideration by us and we are inclined to examine the contention in the context of the stand expressed by the respondents.
4. Rule 3 as a whole reads as follows:
“Rule 3:- (a) if a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected.
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land, where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The Department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections any, may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.
(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objections.”
There cannot be any ambiguity in the mind of the Court that this Rule 3 has got relevance to and has come to be formulated only in the context of Section 5-A of the Act. It is better that we have a look at Section 5-A of the Act also by extracting the same as follows:
5-A. Hearing of objections:- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose of for a Company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.”
Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act enables a person interested in any land subject matter of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to object to the acquisition of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act requires that every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing. It further requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by Pleader. It further mandates the Collector, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry if any, as he thinks necessary, to either make a report in respect of the land covered by the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government. The said report shall contain the recommendations of the Collector on the objections together with record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government. Then only the appropriate Government takes the decision on the objections and the said decision is held to be final. Understanding as to what should happen under Section 5-A of the Act if we look into Rule 3, of the Rules which got formulated as noted above, in relation to and in the context of Section 5-A of the Act, we find clause (a) of Rule3 of the rules saying that if a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners as advanced through their learned Counsel, clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules must be concentrated upon, and its implications can be summed up as follows: If objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as the Department or Company requiring the land, where such Department is not the Revenue Department Here, the requiring Department is the third respondent and the purpose of, acquisition is to establish a Telephone Exchange. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to the requiring Department. The requiring Department may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector, a Statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Clause (c) of Rule 3 of the Rules contemplates follow-up action when it says that on the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector or his Pleader and the representative of the requiring Department and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objections. Only after the processes as contemplated by the above provisions viz., Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 3 and in particular clause (b) thereof, of the Rules are complied with, further steps towards acquisition could be prosecuted.
5. In the instant case what is being complained of is that objections were made by the petitioners who are the owners of the land subject matter of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, but the Collector did not go through the processes contemplated under clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. In Writ Appeal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1192 of 1993 to the ground raised specifically in this behalf, we find there is no rebuttal by the side of the respondents. During the course of hearing of this writ appeal, we queried Mr. R. Narasimha Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as to whether the objections of the petitioners were forwarded to the requisitioning Department for the purpose of getting its remarks for being considered during the course of further enquiry as contemplated under clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The answer given by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was in the negative. Thus we find that the requirements of clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules, stood violated in the instant case.
6. As to the nature of the requirements under Rule3 (b) of the Rules we have been asked by Mr. E. Manohar learned Counsel for the petitioners/appellants herein to take note of the pronouncement of the apex court in State, of Mysore and Ors. v. V.K. Kangan and Ors., . In that pronouncement, the apex Court was dealing with a similar Rule in Madras Land Acquisition Rules and it was held that the Rule is mandatory. While doing so, the apex Court upheld the decision of a Bench of Kerala High Court in Lonappan v. Sub-Collector of Palghat, and also the decisision of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras in K.V. Krishna Iyer v. The State, of Madras, 1967(2) MLJ 422.
7. We also find that a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Sinnaiyan and Ors. v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, 1971 (1) MLJ 342 has delineated the purport of Rule 3 of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules and it would be worthwhile to extract the relevant passage from that pronouncement as follows:
“From this rule, it would be seen that the objector gets an opportunity to know, at the time of the enquiry, what answer if any, the company or the department for whom the acquisition is proposed to be made, has given with regard to his objections. On coming to know at the time of enquiry how the objections are sought to be met by the company or the concerned department, the objector gets an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the objections. If the company of the concerned department has nothing to say in answer to the objections, the objector might urge before the acquisition officer that the objections should be accepted as they are not controverted, though it would be open to the acquisition officer on an appreciation of all the facts, either to accept or reject the objections. Such a procedure is laid down with a view to give the owner of the land every reasonable opportunity to urge his objection against the proposed compulsory acquisition”.
In K.N.E. Jaganath Iyer v. State of Madras, , 1978 (1) MLJ 19, A.D. Koshal, J, as he then was, held that the provisions of clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules are mandatory and the absence of notice to the concerned Department would vitiate the proceedings. While holding so, the learned Judge followed the pronouncement of the apex Court in State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangart (1 supra). The principle settled in the above pronouncements speaking in favour of the petitioners/appellants herein on the admitted facts, we do not think there is an escape for the respondents from the scathe of the violation of the said principles.
8. Mr. E. Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners did have the other contentions to press forth and urge before us. Since we have upheld the contention built on the violation of Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 3 (b) of the Rules, we have not found a necessity to go into the other contentions.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to uphold the decision of the learned single Judge and on the other hand we are obliged to interfere in this writ appeal. Accordingly, we allow this writ appeal; set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow Writ Petition No. 9834 of 1989. It must be noted here that during the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the fact that this Court confined the interim direction only to dispossession, further proceedings concerning acquisition of land have been prosecuted and we find an award has ensured on 18-9-1991. In view of the vital infirmity concerning the violation of the mandatory provisions, the proceedings which ensued pursuant to the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act must also fall to the ground and we declare it to be so. We make no order as to costs.