Holding

Non‑compliance with the mandatory special notice and opportunity provisions of Rule 21(3) and (4) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 renders the final town‑planning scheme invalid.

Summary

The appellants, long‑time tenants of a plot that was reconstituted under a town‑planning scheme, challenged the scheme on the ground that the Town Planning Officer failed to serve the special notice required by Rule 21(3) and to give a reasonable opportunity as mandated by Rule 21(4) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955. The trial court granted a permanent injunction; the High Court set aside that decree, holding the notice provisions were not mandatory. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, the purpose of the notice provisions, and the principles of natural justice. It held that a tenant or sub‑tenant in possession at the date of notification is a "person interested" entitled to the notice and opportunity, and that the word "shall" in the Rules confers a mandatory duty. Consequently, non‑compliance with Rules 21(3) and (4) vitiates the validity of the final scheme. The Court allowed the appeal, directed the corporation to provide alternative premises to the appellants, and upheld the lower court’s decree in other respects.

Issues considered

The compliance with sub‑rule 21(3) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 is mandatory or directory.
The compliance with sub‑rule 21(4) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 is mandatory or directory.
Whether non‑compliance with these sub‑rules vitiates the final town‑planning scheme.
Whether a tenant or sub‑tenant in possession is a "person interested" entitled to notice and opportunity under the Rules.

Legislation cited

Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955s. 10, s. 18, s. 2, s. 22, s. 23, s. 25, s. 26, s. 27, s. 28, s. 3, s. 31, s. 32, s. 34, s. 4, s. 5, s. 54, s. 55, s. 56, s. 60, s. 9
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 105

Subjects

Town planning schemeNatural justiceMandatory noticeSpecial noticeWaiverLeasehold rightsProperty rightsProcedural fairnessSection 105 TP ActBombay Town Planning Rules

Judgment

A JASWANT SINGH MATHURA SINGH AND ANR.
v.
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS ..
~
OCTOBER 1, 1991

B [ RANAGNATH MISRA, CJ., KULDIP SINGH AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955: Rules 21(3) and (4).

Town Planning Scheme-Procedure to be followed by Town Planning j.___
c Officer-Compliance with Rule 21(3) and (4) held mandatory-Non-com-
pliance vitiates the validity of the Town Planning Scheme- Tenant or sub-
tenant in possession of a tenement in the Town Planning Scheme-Held a
person interested and entitled to notice under sub-rule (3) and opportunity
under sub-role (4)-Purpose of Rule 21(3) and (4)-Explained.
D
Principle of 'Waiver' explained.

Administrative Law - Natural justice. 'f

E Deprivation of property - lniposition of liability - Prior notice and
opportunity should be provided to affected person - Rules 21(3) and (4)
of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 subserve the principle of Natural
Justice and the basic concept of fair and just procedure.

'Shall' - Connotation of - Whether mctndatory or directory - Mean- ~
F ing shall be ascertained in the light of legislative intent, the context in which
it is couched, the consequences it prod~ces and the purpose it seeks to serve.
The appellant was in possession of a plot as a tenanL Pursuant to a
Town Planning Scheme framed by the respondent-Corporation under the
Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 the said plot was re· constituted I.e. the
G plot was altered by the making of the Town Planning Scheme. The
respondent was injuriously affected by the said scheme because it has the
effect of terminating his possession and adversely affected his business in y
the demised premises. However, before finalising the scheme the· Town
Planning Officer neither issued special notice to the respondent as
required under sub-rule (3) nor provided him an opportunity as provided
H 226
JASWANT SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. '227

under sub-rule (4) of Rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955. A
The appellants filed a civil suit challenging the action and ,the Trial Court
Issued a permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Corporation
from rec~nstituting the plot until due procedure was followed.

On appeal by the Corporation a Single Judgt! of the High Court
allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Trial Court and B
dismissed the suit. The Single Judge followed the decision of the Full
Bench in Dungarlal Harichand v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1976) 17 G.L.R.,
J 1152 holding that the appellants were not entitled to special notice under
sub-rule.(3) and opportunity under sub-rule (4) and that non-compliance
with the said rule does not vitiate the Planning Scheme. The decision of the c
Single Judge was confirmed in Letter Patent appeal by the Division Bench
or the High Court.

In tenant's appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
Respondent-Corporation that (i) compliance with sub-rule 21(3) & (4) was
not mandatory; (ii) Since sub-rule 21(3) is only an additional advantage it D
is dispensable and could be waived; (iii) the framing of the Town Planning
.f' Scheme is for the benefit of the residents or the Local authority as an
amenity provided therein to the general public i.e. construction or General
Post Offi'--e, the interest of the general public outweighs the individual
Interest, Therefore, sub-rule 21(3) is not mandatory; (iv) the use of the E
word 'shall' in rule 21(3) may be construed as directory and not as
mandatory.

Allowing the appeal,,thls Court,
,,,~:

HELD: 1. Under Section 105 ,of Transfer of Property Act, a lease F
· creates right or an Interest in enjoyment of the demised property and a
' tenant or a sub-tenant is entitled to remain in possession of the demised
property until the lease is duly terminated and eviction takes place ln
accordance with law. Therefore, a tenant or a sub-tenant in possession of a
tenement in the Town Planning Scheme is a person interested within the
meaning of Rules 21(3) & (4) of the.Rules. But he must be in possession of G
the property on the crucial date i.e. when the town plan scheme is notified
"" in the official gazette. Every owner or tenant or a sub-tenant, in possession
on that date alone shall be entitled to a notice and opportunity.
Accordingly, appellants are entitled to notice under sub-rule (3) and a
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R.

A reasonable opportunity under sub-rule (4) thereof. (234 H; 235 A~B; 235
E] y-
2. A conspectus of the statutory scheme brings out the fact tba~ the
Town Planning Officer before making the final scheme and submitting· It
to th"' local authority is required to follow the procedure prescribed by the
B Act and the ·Rules. At the refevant stages, he is required to issue notice to
the affected person. (234 F·G]

2.1 A reading of s. 3i of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 read _.__
with Rule 21(3) makes it abundantly clear that the Town Planning Officer
Is to give notice of at least 3 days in the prescribed manner to the affected
c persons to submit objections or views; affected persons are to be given
adequate opportunity under rule 21(4) to respond and thereafter the
omcer is to demarcate the area allotted to or resened for public purposes
or for purpose of the local authority and the reconstituted plots to be
allotted to persons in ownership with the shares of such persons In
D common plot etc. (236 G·H]

3. Rule 21 (3) speaks of special notice of at least three days duration. 't
It Is inconsonance with and in compliance of the principles of natural
justice. The legislature thus made a distinction between the general notice
envisaged in sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 and special notice under sub-rule (3)
E of Rule 21, which was In addition to the former. (237-C]

3.1 The purposes of clauses (3) and (4) of Rule 21 are obvious and
the consequences that would ensue are self-evident. The Issuance of notice
under sub·rule (3) and giving of sufficient opportunity under sub-rule (4). ~'

F are self evident to subserve the basic concept of fair and Just procedure.
These sub·rules subserve the principles of natural Justice to avoid
arbitrariness offending Article 14 and to be Just and fair procedure
satlsf)'lng the mandate of Article 21. (237· C,E]

. 4. It ls settled law that before depriving a person of his property or
G Imposing any further liability, the principle of natural Justice require prior
notice and reasonable opportunity to him to put forth his claim or ·~
objections. (237·8]

4.1 Since the non-compliance with Issuance of notice and giving of
sufficient opportunity contemplated under sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21
H
JASWANf SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. 229

injuriously affects the right to property of the Owller or interest of the
tenant or su•tenant, as the case may be, it shall be construed to be A.
mandatory and not directory. Therefore, the issuance of special notice of
at least three clear days duration and giving sufficient opportunity to the
person affected to put forth bis views of the scheme are mandatory and
non-compliance thereof vitiates the validity of the final scheme. [237 H;
238A;237E]
B
-~ Kaushikprasad Chandulal Mahadevia & Anr. v. The Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation and Ors., (1970) 11 G.L.R. 993; Mohan/al
Jesinghbliai v. PJ. Patel, Town Development Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation & Ors, (1970) 11 G.L.R. 1035, approved.

Dungarlal Haricliand v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (1976) 17 G.L.R. c
1152, disapproved.

S. The appearance of 'shall' is not conclusive, nor per se connotes its
mandatory contour. Its meani'ng must be ascertained in the light of the
legislative intent in its employment, the context in which it was couched,
D
the consequences it produces the result it effected and above all the
purpose it seek to serve, would all be kept in view. From the fact situation
the courts are to cull out the intention whether the construction to be put
up would subserve the purpose of the legislative intent or tend to defeat it.
Public interest, is always, a paramount consideration. (237 F-G]
E
6. The principle of Waiver connotes issuance of notice and non-
response thereto. Everyone has a r;ght to waive an advantage or protection
which law seeks to give him. Undoubtedly, if a notice is issued and no
representation is made by either the owner, tenant or a sub-tenant, it
would amount to waive the opportunity and such person cannot be F
permitted to turn round, after the scheme reaches finality, to say that
there is non".(:ompliance of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21. It would
amount to putting premium on dilatory and dishonest conduct. [238 B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1354 of G
1977.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.1977 of the Gujarat High
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 114of1977.
P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shalini Soni for the Appellants. H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991} SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A T.U. Mehta, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep S. Parihar, Mrs. Manik Karan- y
jawala (N.P.), Mrs. Nandini Gore and Anip Sachthey (N.P.) for. the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the
B judgment of the Division Bench in L.P .A. No. 114 of 1977 dated May 4,
1977 of the_ Gujarat High Court. The one question for decision in this
appeal is whether the compliance of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 22 of
Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 for short 'the Rules' is mandatory and
whether the violation thereof invalidates the final town planning 'scheme. In
C a suit laid by the appellants, the trial court found as a fact that the appel-
lant, a partnership firm, was continuing in possession of the old premises
bearing M.C. No. 352/3 (S) No. 163-A-2 from the year 1940 as a direct
tenant of Ahmedabad Panjara Pole, Barartha, a registered trust, the owner
of the plot of land of survey No. 163 situated in Ward No.·•c• in front of
town hall in Sher Kota outside Saraspur gate in the city of Ahmedabad.
D ·The original plot consists of an area about 5 hundred to 6 hundred square
yards in. extent wherein' certain structures were laid and leased out to the
tenants or sub-tenants for business purposes. The Town Planning Scheme
was formulated by the municipal corporation in exercise of its power under
the Bombay Town Planning Act 1955 (Act 27 of 1956) for short 'the Act'
and reconstituted the final plot Nos. 82 and 83 out of the original plot No.
E 59 of the Town Planning scheme No. 16, Sher Kota Admn. (Survey No.
163). The Town Planning Officer did not issue special notice as required
under sub-rule (3) and opportunity provided for under sub-rule (4) of Rule
~--
21. The appellants along with others filed civil suits challenging the action.
The appellants' suit was decreed declaring that final plot Nos. 82 and 83
upon which the structures were standing with Municipal No. 35213 and in
F . occupation of the appellants is illegal, invalid and issued a permanent in-
junction restraining the respondent not to enforce the reconstituted plot
Nos. 82 and 83 until due procedure is followed. The learned Single Judge
in F'rrst Appeal No. 669n6 allowed the appeal alongwith other bunch of
appeals holding that the decision in Dungarlal Harichand v. State of Gujarat
& Ors., 1976 (17) G.L.R. 1152 (Full Bench) ratio applies to the facts in this
G case and the appellants are not entitled to special notice required under
sub-rule (3) and opportunity under sub-rule (4) of Rule 2L The failure to .
comply therewith does not vitiate nor render the draft scheme or the final
scheme a nullity. Accordingly the learned single Judge allowed the appeal,
set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. On Letter
Patent Appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the same. Thus this appeal.
H
JASWANf SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [RAMASWAMY,J.} 231

Sbri Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents claimed A
that special notice required under sub-rule (3) and the opportunity under
sub-rule (4) of Rule 21 were not mandatory. Hence they were not complied
with. Since sub-ruJe (3) of Rule 21 is only an additional advantage, it is not
indispensable. At any rate it could be waived. The framing of the town
planning scheme and its final approval is for the benefit of the residents of
the local authority as an amenity provided therein to the general public i.e. B
construction of General Post· Office. The interest of the general public
J outweighs the individual interest. Therefore, sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 is not
~ mandatory.

A bird's eye view of the statutory scheme and its effect on the right
and interest of the owner or tenant would point poignantly that the conten- C
tion is devoid of substance. The Act as modified and adapted by the
Gujarat Adaptation of Laws (State Amendments) Order 1963.as amended
from time to time was to ensure that the town planning schemes are made
in a proper manner and execution thereof is made effective. The local
authority has to prepare a development plan (Master Plan) for the entire
area within its jurisdiction. Section 2(2) defines development plan means a D
plan for the development and redeveiopment or improvement of the entU:e
area within the jurisdiction of a local authority prepared under section 3.
The local authority has been defined under section 2(4) to mean municipal
corporation or municipality etc. Section 2(5) defines owner in an inclusive
way saying that any person for the time being receiving or entitled to
receive.....the rent or profits of the property in oonnection with which it is E
used; Section 2(3) defines "plot" to mean "a continuous portion of land held
by one ownership". Section 2(9) defines "reconstituted plot" to mean a plot
which is in any way altered by the making of a town planning scheme. Section
2(10) defines "scheme" to include "a plan relating to a town planning
scheme"~ Section 3(1) empowers every local authority to prepare and
publish in the prescribed manner a development plan and to submit it to F
the State Govt. for sanction otherwise Government too is empowered to do
so. Under sub-section (1) of s. 4 the local authority is authorised to make a
declaration of its intention to prepare a development plan and to despatch
a copy thereof to the State Govt. for publication in the Official Gazette.
The State Govt. after inviting suggestions from the public within a period of
two months is to publish in the Official Gazette the fact of making such G
dec~ation or intention as aforesaid. Section 7 prescribes the particulars of
the Master Plan. ·

Chapter III prescribes the making and the contents of the town plan-
ning scheme. Section 18 provides that a local authority may make one or
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R'

A more town planning schemes for the area within its jurisdiction or in part y
thereof, regard being had "to the proposal in the final development plan.
.Sub-section (2) provides that such town planning scheme "may make
provisions" for any of the following matters: - ·

(a) "the laying out" or "relaying out of land", either vacant or "already-
B built upon"; .

(b) ......... (omitted being irrelevant);

( c) lay out of new streets or roads, constructions diversion, extension,
.alteration, improvement and stopping up of streets, roads and communica-
C tions;
(d) the construction, "alter~tion" and "removal of buildings", bridges
and other structures; · ·

(e) "the allotment" or "reseriration" of land for roads, open spaces,
gardens, recreation grounds, school, market, green belts and dairies,
D transport facilities and public purposes of all kinds;
(1) drainage inclusive of sewerage, surface or sub-soil drainage and
sewage disposal;

(g) lighting;
E
(h) Water supply;

(i) Omitted. ~

G) "imposes" sub-section.(2) "conditions and restrictions" in regard to
F the "open space to be maintained about buildings", the percentage of build-
ing area for a plot, the number, size, ·height and character of buildings
allowed in specified areas, the p.urposes to which buildings or specified
areas may or not be apprcipriated,'"the sub-division of plots", the discon-
tinuance of objectionable users of .land in any area in reasonable p~riods, .
parking space and loading and unloading space for any building or the
G sizes of projections and advertiseme!lts signs. ~~/Fff
(k) & (1) Omitted.

In Chapter JV under sub-sec. (1) of s. 22, the local authority-may by a
resolution declares its intention to make a town planning sche~e in respect
H of the whole or any part of ilie land which is in the course of development
JASWANr SINGH v. MUNICIPAL.CORPN. [ RAMASWAMY,J.] 233

or likely to be used for building purposes or already built upon. Within 21 A
days from the date of such declaration it shall publish it in the prescribed
manner (the details are not relevant here) and shall despatch a copy there-
of to the State Govt. Under sub-section (1) of s. 23, within 12 months from
the date of such declaration or extended period not exceeding six months,
the draft scheme for the area in respect of which the declaration has been
made by a notification in the official Gazette, shall be approved. Section 25 .B
envisages specification of the particulars in the draft scheme. Clause (a)
"specifies the area", "ownership" and "tenure of each original plot"; (b) the
land allotted or reserved under sub-clause (a) of Clause (2) of s. 18; (c)
"the extent" to which it is "proposed to alter the. boundaries of original
plots" etc. Under section 26 "the size and shape of every reconstituted plot"
shall be determined, so as to render it suitable for building purposes etc. C
with further particulars enumerated in sub-sections. (2) and (3) thereof.
·Section 27 gives an opportunity to any person effected by such scheme to
submit objections, if any, within six months· from tl}e date of publication of
the draft scheme. The local authority shall consider such objections; it is
empowered to modify such scheme as it thinks fit in the light of the objec-
tion and then to submit it to the State Govt. within four months from the D
date of its publication in the official Gazette as required under section
28(1). The State Govt. within six months from the date of the submission of
the draft scheme by the local authority original or with modification shall
sanction such scheme with or without any further modification and publish
the same in the official Gazette with such conditions as it may think fit.
Such scheme shall be open to the inspection of the public under s. 28(3). E
Under section 31(1), within one month from the date of the publica-
tion of the draft sanctioned town planning scheme, the State Govt. shall
appoint a Town Planning Officer who is to make final scheme while per-
forming the duties imposed on him under s. 32 in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in s. 32 and the Rules. Under section 32 after not~ce F
given in the manner, it defines and demarcates the areas allotted to, or_
reserved, for a public purposes or purpose of the local authority and the
reconstituted plots; indicate the person to be allotted of ownership in
reconstituted plot in common and the shares of such persons, etc. He has
also to fix the difference between the total of the value of the original plot
and the total of the plots included in the final scheme etc. He has also to G
calculate or to estimate the compensation payable on each plot used; the
contribution to be levied on each plot used, or reserved for a public pur-
pose; of use partly to the owner and partly to the public; to determine the
l\ft\()Un\ of exemption, if any, from payment of die contribution of the lands
occupied by religious and charitable purposes. The contribution of the
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. L

A costs in the final scheme is also enjoined to be calculated and to determine y
the liabilities etc. as indicated in Clauses (vi) to (xi). Clause (xii) provides
for the total or partial transfer of any right in any original plot to a
reconstituted plot or provide for the extinction of any right in an original
plot in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 68 and then has to
draw plan as provided under clause (xiv) in the final scheme in accordance
B with the draft scheme. Under the proviso it is empQwered to make varia-
tion from the draft scheme the details of which are not necessary but
suffice to state that under the proviso no substantial variation shall be
made by the Town Planning Officer without the consent of the local
authority and without hearing any objections which may be raised by the ·
owner concerned. Thereafter, the decision of the Town Planning Officer
C subject to an appeal, if any, th<>. State Govt. under section 34, shall make it
final and binds the parties. The final scheme shall b» published, after fol-
lowing the procedure in Rule 21(1) to (8), as per sub-rule (9). Section 54
provides that on and after the day on which the final scheme comes into
force any person continuing to occupy any land which he is not entitled to
occupy under the final scheme shall be ejected summarily as per the
D prescribed procedure and local authority shall also be entitled to remove,. ¥
pull down or alter any building or other work in the area included in the
scheme under section 55 after giving notice in the prescribed manner and
in accordance with the procedure of the scheme. Section 56 gives power to
the State Govt. to vary scheme on grounds of irregularity or infirmity in
making the scheme. Under section 60 every party to any proceeding before
E the Town Planning Officer shall be entitled to appear either in person or
by his recognized agent.

Though the challenge in the appeal is confined to a limited point, as ,.,...._--....
will presently appear, we have given the conspectus of the statutory scheme
to bring out the fact that the Town Planning Officer before making the final
·F scheme and submitting it to the local authority is required to follow the
procedure·prescribed by the Act and the Rules. He is.entitled to alter the
· plots, make reconstitution of plots, determine the persons entitled to real-
Jotment on reconstitution; to reserve the area for public purpose; deter-
mine the compensation; liability of the owner to contribute the amount; to
provide amenities etc. At the relevant stages, he is required to issue notice
G · to the effected person.
The question is whether the tenant or a sub-tenant is a person inter-
ested and is entitled to notice. It is obvious that under s. 105 of Transfer of
Property Act, a lease creates right or· an interest in enjoyment of the
demised property and a tenant or a sub-tenant is entitled to remain in
H
JASWANf SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. { RAMASWAMY, J. ) 235

possession of the demised property until the lease is duly terminated and A
eviction takes place in accordance with law. Therefore, a tenant or a sub-
tenant in possession of a tenement in the Town Planning Scheme is a
person interested within the meaning of Rules 21(3) & (4) of the Rules.
But he must be in possession of the property on the crucial date i.e. when
the town plan scheme is notified in the official gazette. Every owner or
tenant or .a sub-tenant, in possession on that date alone shall be entitled to B
a notice and opportunity.

Undoubtedly, the Town Planning Scheme was published on July 1,
1951. There was inordinate delay in implementation of the scheme for 30
long years. Though Shri Parekh, learned counsel for the appellants, con-
tended that a better scheme could be formulated for construction of a post C
office upon the reconstituted plot No. 82 by leaving out the shops in ques-
tion; we are not inclined to embark upon an enquiry in that regard. The
Act gives power to the local authority to have the matter investigated into
and to formulate its town planning scheme; its approval is by the State
Govt.; an expert officer, namely, Town Planning Officer, thereafter, is ap-
pointed to finalise the scheme with all local assistance. He, being an expert D
on the site, is entitled to look into all relevant aspects and to finalise the
scheme for reconstitution of the plot or alteration of the boundaries etc.

Appellants are entitled to notice under sub-rule (3) and a reasonable
opportunity under sub-rule (4) thereof. Rule 21(1) to (8) lay down the
procedure to be followed by the Town Planning Officer and it reads thus: E
21. Procedure to be followed by Town Planning Officer: -
The Town Planning Officer shall give notice to the date on
which he will commence his duties and shall state therein the
time, as provided in rule 30, within which the owner of any
property or rights which is injuriously affected by the making F
of the town planning scheme shall be advertised in one or more
newspapers published in the regional language and circulating
within the jurisdiction of the local authority and shall be posted
in prominent places at or near the area comprised in the
scheme and at the office of the Town Planning Officer.
(2) The Town Planning Officer, shall, after the date fixed in the G
not.ice given under sub-rule (1), continue to carry on his duties
as far as possible on working days and during working hours.
(3) Special notice of at least three clear days shall be served .
upon the person interested in any plot or in any particular
comprised in the scheme, before the Town Planning Officer, H
236 SUPREME COUKI' RF.PORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R..

A proceeds to deal in detail with the portion of the scheme relat-
ing thereto. Such special notice shall also be posted at the
office of the Town Planning Officer. Such notice ~be given
in the cases mentioned in clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section
(1) of s. 32 and in any other cases where any persons have not
been sufficiently informed that any matter affecting them is to
be considered. '
B
(4) The Town Planning Officer shall give all persons affected
by any particular of the scheme sufficient opportunity of stat- ~
ing their views and shall not give any decision till he has duly
considered their representations, if any.

c (5) If during the proceedings, it appears to the Town Planning
Officer that there are conflicting claims or any difference of
opinion with regard to any part of the scheme, the Town Plan-
ning Officer shall record a brief minute in his own hand setting
out the points at issue and the necessary particulars, and shall
give a decision with the reasons thereof. All such minutes shall
D be appended to the scheme.
(6) The Town Planning Officer shall record and enter in the scheme
every decision given by him under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (vii), (x) and (xii)
of sub-section (1) of section 32. The calculations and estimates required
by clauses (iv), (v) , (vi), (vii), (ix), (x) and (xiii) of sub-section (1) of
section 32 shall be set out and recorded.
E
(7) The fmal scheme drawn up by the Town Planning Officer shall
includ.e the particulars specified in rule 17.
'>,.----
(8) The component parts of the scheme shall be so arranged that
they may be readily referred to in connection with the map and plans.
F
(9) Oniitted.

A reading of s. 32 read with Rule 21(3) makes it abundantly clear
that the the Town Planning Officer is to give notice of at least 3 days in
the prescribed .manner to the effected persons to submit objections or
views; are to be given adequate opportunity under rule 21(4) to respond
G and thereafter the Officer is to demarcate the area allotted to or reserved ~
J

for public purposes or for purpose of the local authority and the
reconstituted plots to be allotted to persons in ownership with the shares
of such persons in common plot etc. He is also entitled to alter the boun-
daries, allocate certain lands for public purposes, reduce the size of the
existing plots or re-distribute the plots to the owners etc. in the
H
JASWANf SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [RAMASWAMY,J.) '137

reconstituted plot. The second stage is the calculation of the contribution A
and apportionment thereof among the persons liable to make contnbution.
~- Thus the owner, tenant or a sub-tenant, as the case may be, is entitled to
a notice and an adequate opportunity to place on record, if he 'SO choses,
his objections or views and the same shall be considered and action taken
thereafter. It is settled law that before depriving a person of his property
or imposing any further liability, the principles of natural justice require B
prior notice and reasonable opportunity to him to put forth his clairit or'
objections. Rule 21(3) speaks of special notice of at least three days dura-
tion. It is in consonance with and in compliance ofthe principles of natural
-A.. justice. The legislature thus made a distinction between the general notice
envisaged in sub-rule_ (1) of Rule 21 and special notice under sub-rule (3)
of Rule 21, which was in addition to the former.
c
The purposes of clauses (3) and (4) of Rule 21 are obvious and the
consequences that would ensue are self-evident. These sub-rules subserve
the principles of natural justice to avoid arbitrariness offending Art. 14
and to be just and fair procedures satisfying the mandate of Art. 21. Non-
observance otherwise would render the scheme illegal. No provision of a
statute or Rule would be rendered surplusage or otiose. The construction D
of the Rules by the Full Bench would, however, result in rendering sub-
't rules (3) & ( 4) surplusage and otiose. Sub-rule (4) postulates that Town
Planning Officer shall give to a person effected by the scheme sufficient
opportunity to state his views and shall not give any decision till he duly
considers the representation, if any. The issuance of notice under sub-rule
(3) and giving of sufficient opportunity under sub-rule (4) are self-evident E
to subserve the basic concept of fair and just procedure. Accordingly we
hold that issuance of special notice of at least_ three clear days duration
and giving sufficient opportunity to the person effected to put forth his
.... '-,l views of the scheme are mandatory and non-compliance thereof vitiates
the validity of the final scheme.
F
The use of 'shall' in the given circumstances may be construed to
be directory but not mandatory as contended by Shri Mehta. The ap-
pearance of 'shall' is not conclusive, nor per se connotes its mandatory
contour. Its meaning must be ascertained in the light of the legislative
intent in its employment, the context in which it was couched, the conse-
quences it produces the result it effected and above all the purpose it seek G
to serve, would all be kept in view. From the fact situation the courts are
-r to cull out the intention whether the construction to be put up would
subserve the purpose of the legislative intent or tend to defeat it. Public
interest, is always a paramount consideration. Since the non-compliance
with issuance of notice and giving of sufficient opportunity contemplated
\U\t\~Y ~uh-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21 injuriously affects the right to H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A property of the owner or interest of the tenant or sub-tenant, as the case
may be, it shall be construed to be mandatory and not directory. In this
view it is redundant to burden the judgment with all the decisions cited
by either counsel. ·

The principle of Waiver connotes issuance of notice· and non-
response thereto. Everyone has a right to waive an advantage or protection
.B which law seeks to give him/her. Undoubtedly, if a notice is issued and no
representation was made by either the owner, tenant or a sub-tenant, it
would amount to. waive the opportunity and such person cannot be per-
mitted to turn round, after the scheme reaches finality, to say that there
is non-compliance of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21. I~ would amount
to putting premium on dilatory and dishonest conduct.
c
Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the judgments in
Kaushikprasad Clzandulal Mahadevia & Anr. v. T71e Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation and Ors., 1970 (11) G.L.R. 993 and Mohan/al Jesingllbhai v.
P.J. Patel, Town Development Officer, Ahmedabad Mwiicipa/ Corporation
D & Ors., 1970 (11) G.L.R: 1035, laid down the law correctly: The finding of
the Full Bench in the first part of its judgment to the effect that non-com-
pliance with the requirements of sub--rules "(3) and (4) of Rule 21 does
not vitiate the scheme is not sound in law.

It is seen that the appellant has been in possession as tenant for well
E over half a century arid, therefore, it is injuriously affected by the scheme
which has the effect of terminating his possession and this adversely affects
its business in the demised premises. Since it is a running business over the
years, the respondent is. directed to provide .an alternative premises by
allotting a suitable shop within the city to the appellant; to put it in posses-
F sion thereof and until then allow its occupation of demised shop. In case
the appellant does not vacate or creates any obstruction in any form in the
matter of possession, it would be open to the respondent to have the appel-
lant ejected sumniarily. In this vi~w we decline to interfere with the
scheme. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent and in other
respects the decree of the Courts below is upheld. But in the circumstances
G parties are directed to bear their own costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed ..