Mathew J. - (1.) We take up for consideration Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 1973. The respondents are the owners of the lands in question. They 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 Section 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 case, the provisions of Section 5-A 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:"The respondent agrees to modify the impugned notification issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard under Section 5-A of the Act. Hence the relief sought for by the petitioner becomes unnecessary. " The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore, issued notices to the respondents stating that the respondents will be given opportunity to file objections under SecRs. tion 5-A of the Act pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 768 of 1960. The respondents filed their objections and after an inquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report to the, Government. The Government considered the report and overruled the objections. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The respondents challenged the above notification as well as the notification under Section 4 by a writ petition in the High Court.
(2.) The respondents attacked the validity of the notifications on the ground that the Education Department at whose instance the land was sought to be acquired was not given notice as required under Rule 3 (b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules as in force in the Madras area of the State of Mysore at the time of inquiry under Section 5-A and that since the requirement of notice as enjoined by Rule 3 (b) was mandatory, the failure to comply with that requirement rendered the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act invalid.
(3.) The High Court by its order upheld the contention of the respondents and quashed the notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 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.;