JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the second time, the petitioners are approaching this court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners of agricultural lands which along with sevdral other lands were acquired for a public purpose viz. , for regional Engineering College, at the instance of the Education Department of the State. By a preliminary notification dated 5-1-1960 published in the Mysore Gazette dated 5th May, 1960, it was notified that in view of the urgency of the case the provisions of S. 5a of the Land Acquisition Act (shortly "the Act") shall not apply to the case. The petitioners challenged the said notification in WP. No. 768 of 1960. When the matter came up for final disposal, a memo was produced on behalf of the State Government and thip court on the basis of the said memo dismissed that writ petition, by the following order:"mr. Government Pleader produced a memo which reads- "the Respondent agrees to modify the impugned notification issued under S. 4 (1) read with S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard under S. 5-A of the Act. Hence the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes unnecessary. The petition may therefore be dismissed with no order as to costs. ""since the petitioner will now be afforded the opportunity to be heard which is enjoined under S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not necessary to make any further order in this writ petition. "thereafter the Government did not issue any fresh preliminary notification. But the special Land Acqusition Officer, Mangalore, issued notices to the petitioners, one dt. 19-9-1963 is filed as Ext. H' to the petition: stating that he was directed to give the owners of the lands to be acquired an opportunity of being heard under S. 5a of the Act, pursuant to the order made in Writ Petition 768 of 1960. The said notice invited objections against the acquisition, from the interested persons. The petitioners filed their objections. After formal enquiry, the land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the Government. This was followed by the issue of the final notification under S. 6 of the Act, declaring that the lands are required for the public purpose. The final notification dt. The said notice invited objections against the acquisition, from the interested persons. The petitioners filed their objections. After formal enquiry, the land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the Government. This was followed by the issue of the final notification under S. 6 of the Act, declaring that the lands are required for the public purpose. The final notification dt. 15th July, 1967 was published in the Mysore Gazette dt. 24th august 1967. The petitioners have challenged the said preliminary and final notifications in this writ petition. ( 3 ) SEVERAL contentions were raised in the petition. But in the course of the arguments Mr. K. R. D. Karanth, learned Counsel for the petitioners pressed only the following two points: (i) The entire acquisition proceedings were vitiated by the nonrompliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 3 of the Madras Land acquisition Rules (briefly called the Madras Rules') as in force in the madras area of the State of Mysore at the time of S. 5a enquiry: and (ii) That the entire acquisition proceedings commencing from Sec. 4 notification were illegal, as the Government did not issue a modified preliminary notification as per their undertaking given to this Court in the previous writ petition. ( 4 ) ELABORATING the first contention, Mr. Karanth said that the impugned acquistion was at the instance of the Education Department, for the benefit of the Regional Engineering College. The Land Acquisition Officer, on receipt of the objections filed by the petitioners ought to have issued notice of those objections to the Education Department and after ascertaining their views, further enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act ought to have been made. The omission to issue such notice, according to him renders the report of the enquiry and the declaration of the Government illegal. ( 5 ) MR. Chandrakantraj Urs, learned High Court Government advocate contended in the alternative that the said Rule was not mandatory and that it was not in force when the' Land Acquisition Officer made the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Mysore Act XVII of 1961. ( 6 ) WE will first consider whether the requirement of the R. 3 (b) of the Madras Rules, of issuing a notice to the Education Department is only directory or mandatory. If it is mandatory, then the non-compliance of its requirement, would undoubtedly invalidate the acquisition proceedings. The said Rule reads thus:"r-3. ( 6 ) WE will first consider whether the requirement of the R. 3 (b) of the Madras Rules, of issuing a notice to the Education Department is only directory or mandatory. If it is mandatory, then the non-compliance of its requirement, would undoubtedly invalidate the acquisition proceedings. The said Rule reads thus:"r-3. Hearing of objection: (a) If a statement of objections is filed after the date or 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-sec. (1) of S. 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 the objections and 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. "the scope of the said rule came for consideration before the High Courts of Kerala and Madras. In Lonappan v. Sub-Collector, Palghat, AIR. 1959 Ker. 343. "the scope of the said rule came for consideration before the High Courts of Kerala and Madras. In Lonappan v. Sub-Collector, Palghat, AIR. 1959 Ker. 343. Kumara pillai, J. who spoke for the Bench, said that the object of giving notice is not merely to give the Department an opportunity to maintain or support its original requisition but also to provide an opportunity for the original requisition being reviewed or reconsidered by the Department in the light of the objections raised by the owner of the land or other persons interested in it In that view, the learned Judge held that where such notice is not given to the Department concerned, the Collector commits a flagrant breach of the provisions of law made for the express purpose of safeguarding the lawful interests of the owners of the properties, and it causes prejudice to the objector and affects the validity of the enquiry and report of the collector. Same was the view taken by P. Ramakrishna, J. of the madias High Court, in K. V. Krishna Iyer v. State of Madras, (1967) 2 Mad. L. J 422 ( 7 ) THE Government of Mysore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 55 of the Act made the rules called 'mysore Land Acquisition Rules, 1965 (which we will call as 'the Mysore Rules' ). Rule 5 (2) of the Mysore rules is in pari-materia with Rule 3 (b) of the Madras Rules. The object of giving notice to the concerned department before the hearing of objections under S. 5a of the Art, has been explained by a Bench of this Court in Nagappa B. Shetty v. Chief Secretary of Mysore State, WP, 1734 and 1735|67. Chandrashekhar, J. who spoke for the Bench said thus:"it is provided in sub-rule (2) of "r 5 that such Department may file a statement by way of answer to the objections filed by the owner or persons having interest in the lands proposed to be acquired. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 the Department may also adduce evidence at the hearing of objections under S. 5a. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 the Department may also adduce evidence at the hearing of objections under S. 5a. If the department to which a notice has been issued, files any reply to the objections filed by the objector, the latter will know what the Department has stated by way of reply, and at the stage of hearing of objections, he (the objector) may adduce evidence or address arguments to meet what has been stated in such reply. Further, under S. 5-A (2) the objector is entitled to obtain a copy of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the Government and the objector may make a representation to the Government that such report should not be accepted. If such Department states either before or during the course of hearing of objections under sec. 5a what it desires to state by way of reply to the objections of objectors, such objectors will have an opportunity of urging before the Government that the reasons given by such Department in such reply to the objections, should not be accepted. "on these principles, it was held that the R. 5 (2) of the Mysore Rules is mandatory. We respectfully agree with the above view. In determining the question whether a provision in a statute or a rule is mandatory or directory as often said one must look into the subject matter and conside. r the importance of the provision disregarded and the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured. The object of the enquiry is to give a reasonable opportunity to the persons interested in the land, to have their say against the acquisition. The department at whose instance, the lands are sought to be acquired must know the nature of the objections and the objectors must know what reasons are stated by the Department for rejecting their objections. In these circumstances, it seems to us that it is neither unjust nor incorrect to exact a rigorous observance of the rule. The views of the Department must form part of the record of enquiry which, must enter into the decision of the Government while making a declaration under S. 6 of the Act. Omission to issue a notice to the Department would seriously prejudice the interests of the objectors and does not serve general object intended to be secured. The views of the Department must form part of the record of enquiry which, must enter into the decision of the Government while making a declaration under S. 6 of the Act. Omission to issue a notice to the Department would seriously prejudice the interests of the objectors and does not serve general object intended to be secured. We therefore hold that the requirement of the said rule in mandatory. ( 8 ) THIS takes us to the question whether R. 3 (b) of the Madras Rules was in force at the time when the Land Acquisition Officer made the enquiry under S. 5-A In 1963. By Mysore Act. No. XVII of 1961, the state of Mysore amended the Act. By S. 2 of the Act No. XVII of 1961, the corresponding amendments made by the erstwhile State of Madras, bombay and Hyderabad as in force in those respective areas of the New state of Mysore, were repealed. Proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 2 of the mysore Act XVII of 1961, States "provided that in respect of provisions which cease to continue by virtue of this section, the provisions of S. 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 (Mysore Act III of 1899) shall be applicable as if such provisions were enactments repealed by a Mysore act and in respect of provisions which cease to continue but are reenacted by this Act, the provision of S. 2a of the said Mysore General clauses Act, 1899, shall be applicable as if the said provision had been repealed but re-enacted by a Mysore Act". Relying upon this proviso, Mr. Urs contended that Rule 3 (b) of the Madras Rules was inconsistent to the provisions of S. 5a of the Mysore Act XVII of 1961, and therefore, was not saved by the provisions of S. 24 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, mr. Urs would be right, if the said Rule is inconsistent with the provisions of S. 5a. In that event, there would be no rule regulating the enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer: because the Government of Mysore made the Mysore Rules only in the year 1965. S. 5a of the Mysore Act XVII of 1961 provides as follows:"5a. Hearing of objections: (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under S. 4, sub-sec. In that event, there would be no rule regulating the enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer: because the Government of Mysore made the Mysore Rules only in the year 1965. S. 5a of the Mysore Act XVII of 1961 provides as follows:"5a. Hearing of objections: (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under S. 4, sub-sec. (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may (on or before the date specified in the notification under sub-sec. (1) of S. 4), object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-sec. (1) shall be made to the (Deputy Commissioner) in writing (setting out the grounds thereof) and the (Deputy 'commissioner) shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard ether in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the (appropriate government) (before the expiry of six weeks from the last date for filing objections or before the expiry of two weeks from the date on which he receives the report under sub-sec. (4) of S. 4 whichever is later) to gether with the record of the proceedings held by him (and a report containing his recommendations on the objections, and the fact of having submitted the report shall be communicated to the objectors: provided that the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay, condone any delay in the submission of the report by a period not exceeding one year. 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. "the said section provides for the 'person interested' to file objections against the acquisition and the Deputy Commissioner to hear the objector and make such further enquiry as he thinks necesary. The regulation of his enquiry is provided by the Rules. Rule 3 (b) of the Madras Rules is one of those Rules. "the said section provides for the 'person interested' to file objections against the acquisition and the Deputy Commissioner to hear the objector and make such further enquiry as he thinks necesary. The regulation of his enquiry is provided by the Rules. Rule 3 (b) of the Madras Rules is one of those Rules. It provides that the Deputy Commissioner (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. It further provides that the copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or Company. Tt is open to the Department or Company to file on or before the date fixed by the Deputy Commissioner a statement by way cf answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Mr Urs contended that the S. 5a does not provide for the issue of notice to the Department concerned and that the Rule providing for it goes beyond the scope of the said section. He further contended that under the section it is only the person interested if he files his objections is required to be notified and the Education Department which has no right to claim an interest in compensation cannot be regarded as a person interested within the meaning of sub-sec. (3) of S. 5a. ( 9 ) THE contention in our opinion. overlooks the scheme and purpose of the enquiry under Section 5a. The object of the enquiry is that the government shall not make a declaration without affording a reasonable opportunity to the person interested in the land to put forward his objections. If any objection is filed, against the proposed acquisition, the department at whose instance the acquisition is proposed should be given an opportunity to have their say in the matter The Depuy Commissioner who makes an enquiry does not know the requirement of the other Department or the Company. It is for this reason that the Rule 3 (b) provides for the issue of notice to the Department or Company requiring the land, where such Department is not the Revenue Department. It is for this reason that the Rule 3 (b) provides for the issue of notice to the Department or Company requiring the land, where such Department is not the Revenue Department. The notice contemplated by this rule is not to invite objections against the acquisition, which could be made only by persons interested; but to enable the Deputy commissioner to enquire into the objections properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Otherwise, the enquiry under Sec. 5a would be empty formality. We do not see anything in Rule 3 (b) which is contrary to the provisions of S. 5a. We therefore reject the contention of Mr. Chandrakantaraj Urs. ( 10 ) IN the view that we have taken, it is not necessary to express any opinon on the second contention of Mr. Karanth. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition and quash tha preliminary and final notifications (Exts. 'h' and 'k' annexed to the petition) in so far as they relate to the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners are ertitled to their costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. --- *** --- .