Holding

The amendment to Section 17(4) mandates that a declaration under Section 6 must be made after the date of publication of the Section 4 notification, rendering simultaneous issuance invalid.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to acquire land for a market yard under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a Section 4 notification and a Section 6 declaration on the same day after the 1984 amendment. The landowners challenged the simultaneous issuance, arguing that the amendment to Section 17(4) required the declaration to be made only after the date of publication of the notification. The Supreme Court examined the language of the amendment, noting that the phrase "after the date of the publication of the notification" imposes a clear temporal separation between the two steps. Relying on the plain meaning rule and the scheme of the Act, the Court held that the amendment indeed bars simultaneous publication. Consequently, the earlier Section 6 declaration was invalid, and the State would need to issue a fresh declaration within the statutory period. The Court dismissed the appeals, leaving the High Court’s order quashed in part and the acquisition proceedings pending a new declaration.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requires a declaration under Section 6 to be made after the date of publication of the Section 4 notification.
Whether a Section 6 declaration can be issued simultaneously with a Section 4 notification in cases of urgency under the amended Act.
What is the effect of simultaneous issuance on the validity of the acquisition process.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(4), s. 4, s. 5, s. 5-A, s. 6
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 4 notificationSection 6 declarationLand Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984Statutory interpretationSection 17(4)Simultaneous publicationPublic purpose

Judgment

_.,#..
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS. '
A
v.
RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.

JANUARY 11, 1989
•
B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] ):_
'
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 4, 6 and 17-'After the date
of the publication of the notification'-Effect of-Introduction of by the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984--Whether section 6 declara- ~
tion can be issued simultaneously with section 4 notification-To be
issued on a subsequent date.
c
Statutory Interpretation: Job of the Court-Interpret the intention y
of legislature by the words used-Explore intentions at time the law was
made.

D The U.P. Legislature enacted in 1973 the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development Act. On or about 11th September, 1974
Lucknow had been declared to be a development area by a notification.
The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 was made effective from
24th September, 1984. Notifications under section 4(1) and a declara- ,-\
lion under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on
E 8th December, 1984 in respect of the Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar)
Phase II on the 28th December, 1984 in respect of Dalibagh Housing
~
Scheme, and on the 21st February, 1980 in respect of the Housing
Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase.HI.

F
The owners of the land which were sought to be acquired by the
aforesaid notifications filed writ petitions in the High Court and
~
obtained stay orders in respect of taking over of possession of the
diverse lands on the ground that the notifications under section 4(1) and
section 6 of the Act have been passed simultaneously.

A Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued
G on the 6th May, 1985 declaring that the lands of the respondents were
needed for a public purpose viz., construction of market yard for the -{.
Krishi Utpadan Samiti. The Notification further contained a declara-
lion that since there was urgency for the acquisition the provisions of
action 17(1A) and section 17(4) of the Act shall apply and the provisions
of section SA shall not apply. On the same day i.e. on 6th May, 1985
H another Notification was issued under section 6 making a declaration
92
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM 93
+. that the land was required for the public purpose viz., construction of A
a market yard. That Notification also contained direction as contempla-
ted in section 17(1) and (IA) authorising the Collector to take possession
of the land even before the declaration of the award under section 11.

Aggrieved by the acquisition the respondents filed two writ peti- B
!ions and contended before the Division Bench of the High Court that in
~'"" view of the amendments introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amend-
ment) Act, 1984, the declaration as contemplated under section 6 could
not have been made on the same day on which the Notification under
""'..~ section 4 was published, and that after the amendment, the Notification
under section 6 of the Act can only be issued after the Notification under
section 4 was published. c
>< The High Court was of the view that prior to the amendment, a
declaration under section 6 could be made simultaneously with the
publication of the Notification under section 4(1), but after the amend-
ment, a declaration can only be made "after the date of publication of
D
the Notification under section 4(1)" and came to the conclusion that
there must be difference of dates between the date of the publication of
the Notification under section 4 and section 6. The High Court held that
the notification under section 6 was therefore rendered illegal and as
f~ such the appellants were not entitled to take possession of the respon-
dents' land. It accordingly quashed the Notification dated 6th May,
E
1985 issued under section 6 of the Act.

In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
State-appellants that the amendment of section 17(4) by the words
"after the date of the publication of the notification" was necessitated
1'
I
because of the change of lite expressions in sub-section (I) of section 4
which for the first time gave a definition of the date of the publication of
F
the notification. Similarly, in section 6(2) the last date of the publicatiou
as enjoined in section 6 had been defined as the date of publication. For
this purpose, it was necessary to introduce the expression "after the
date of the publication of the notification" under sub-section (4) of
section 17.
G
On the question whether the declaration under section 6 of the Act
"' would be issued simultaneously along with a notification under section 4
of the Act in view of the amendment made by section 17( 4) of the Act;

Dismissing the Appeals, H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989], 1 S.C.R.

A HELD: l(a) The words "after the date of the publication of the +-
notification" in sub-section (4) of section 17 read simpliciter clearly
indicate that declaration under section 6 had to be made after the pub/i-
cation of the notification meaning thereby subsequent to the date of the
publication of the notification. There is nothing in the the scheme of the
Act which militates against such a construction. [106F-GI
B !'-'·
l.(b) No alteration in meaning by alteration of language can
result unless the requirement of the English language demand it
or those requirements permit it and the sense of the section demands
it. [107A-B] ·~

c action2.may
At times where emergency provisions are invoked emergent
be taken but in such a situation in view of the state of law
)'
that was before it, the legislature has made a conscious change which
cannot be explained away merely because this is as a consequence of the
changes in sections 4 and 6 of the Act. [106G-H]

D Smt. Somawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1963] 2 SCR 775:
Babu Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1979) SC 1713;
Collector (Disirict Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal,
I1985 I 3 sec 1 referred to.
>
3. The basic principle of construction of every statute is to find
E out what is clearly stated and not to speculate upon latent imPonder-
ables. The scheme of the Act also must be looked into. In interpreting
~
the statutes it is safer to rely on the obvious meaning rather than to \
investigate the imponderables. [1060]

F
Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.R. Shanmugham Chetty & Ors.,
[1987] 2 SCC 707; Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh & Anr. v. State of
\ '
Bihar & Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 319 referred to.

4. It is the job of the Court to interpret the intention of the
legislature by the words used. The fairest and the most rational method
to interpret the will of the legislature is by exploring intentions at
G the time when the law was made by signs, the most natural and
probable. These signs are either the words, the context, the subject 1--
matter, the effects and the consequence or the spirit and reason of the
law. The words have to he understood in their usual and most known
signification. I l07C-D]

H Lord Howard de Walden v. !RC, [1948] 2 AER 825; Hopes v.
Hopes. [1948J 2 AER 920; referred to.
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM IMUKHARJI, J.I 95

Blackstone Commentaries in the Laws of England, Vol. I p. 59
A
referred to.

5. It will be open to the appellants to issne a fresh declara-
tion under section 6, if so advised, within the period contemplated
in the proviso to section 6(1) of the Act read with its first• Explana-
tion. [107F] B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1843
~ of 1986 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1986 of the Allahabad
High Court in C.M.A. No. 3909(W) of 1986 in W.P.No. 2042of1986.
c
Anil Dev Singh, S.N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Umesh
Chandra, Krishan Chandra and C.P. Lal for the Appellants.

R.K. Jain, Pradeep K. Aggarwal, Rakesh Khanna, R.P. Singh
and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J: These appeals by special leave
arise from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad. These involve
common question. It would, however, be appropriate to deal with the E
... facts of Civil Appeal No. 1845 of 1986 which is an appeal from the
decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 8145
and 8146 of 1985 decided on 20th November, 1985. The other two Civil
Appeals deal with identical questions. In order to appreciate the con-
troversy involved it would be necessary to refer to certain facts of the
case. F

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act was enac-
ted by the U.P. Legislature in 1973. On or about 11th of September,
1974, Lucknow had been declared to be a development area by a
notification. On or about 24th of September, 1984 Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 was made effective subsequent to the 24th of G
September, 1984. On the 8th of December, 1984 a Notification under
section 4(1) and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of Ujariyaon
Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase-II was published. On the 28th
December, 1984 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act in respect of L.D.A. Office/Nagar Maha Palika H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

Office and other offices on B.N. Road was published. On the 2nd
:-t-
A January, 1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act in respect of Dalibagh Housing Scheme was
published. On the 4th of February, 1985 Notification under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of Extension
of Kursi Road upto Mahanagar through Vishnupuri was published. On
B 21st February, 1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration I
,., .

under Section 6 of the Act in respect of Ujariyaon Housing Scheme
(Somti Nagar), Ph:ise-III was published. In respect of the several of
these matters on diverse dates several writ petitions had been moved
and orders were passed by the High Court staying taking over of ~
possession of the diverse 1ands, if not already taken over., in case
notifications under section 4(1) and section 6 of the Act have 'been
c passed simultaneously.
y
As mentioned hereinbefore, W!f- are concerned in these appeals
with the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated
20th November, 1985 in Writ Petitions Nos. 8145 and 8146 of 1985.
D The petitioners before the High Court and the respondents herein are
owners of plots situated in village Sonera, Tehsil Kichha, District
Nainital. Their land was being acquired under the provisions of the
Act. A Notification under the said Act was issued on 6th of May, 1985
~\
declaring that the land in question including the respondents' land was
needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of market yard
E for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kichha. The Notification further
contained a declaration that since there was urgency for the acquisi- .....
tion, the provisions of Section 17(1·A) and Section 17(4) of the Act
shall apply and the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not \
apply. On the same day, that is to say, on 6th of May, 1985 another
Notification was issued by the State Government under Section 6 of ~
F the Act making declaration that_ the land in dispute was required for a
public purpose, namely, for the construction of market yard for the
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kichha. That Notification also con-
tained a direction as contemplated by Section 17(1) and (1-A) of the
Act authorising the Collector to take possession of the land even
before the declaration of the award under Section 11 of the Act. Both
G the aforesaid notifications were published on the same day, namely,
the 22nd of May, 1985. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed two ~
writ petitions challenging the validity of the said notifications.

It was urged on behalf of the respondents before the Division
Bench of the High Court of Allahabad that in view of the amendments
H introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No.
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM IMUKHARJI, J.] 97

....;._ 68 of 1984) the declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act
A,
could not have been made on the same day on which the notification
under section 4 of the Act was published, it submitted that now after
the amendment, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act. can only
be issued after the Notification under Section 4 was published. The
High Court found substance in the said submission. According to the
High Court, prior to the amendment of the Act by the Amending Act B
-"' No. 58 of 1984 it was permissible for the Government to issue Notifica-
lion under Section 4 of the Act and to make declaration as contemp-
lated under Section 6 of the Act simultaneously and it was further
permissible to publish both the notification simultaneously as held by
-...-1, this Court in Smt Somawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 11963] 2 SCR
775. The High Court noted that normally after the issue of the Notifi-
cation under Section 4 of the Act objections are invited as contemp-
c
)< lated by Section 5-A of the Act and after holding enquiry the Collector
submits report to the Government and on consideration of the same,
the Government makes declaration as contemplated by Section 6 of
the Act. Possession of the land is taken after the award is declared.
But in case of urgency where the Government considers it necessary to D
acquire the land immediately and to make it possible even prior to the
making of the award, it has the power to dispense with the provisions
of Section 5-A of the Act. Section 17 of the Act confers special power
on the Government and the Collector in case of urgency for immediate
"""~ taking of possession after the issue of the Notification under Section 6
of the Act and without complying with the provisions of Section 5-A of E
the Act. Section 17(4) of the Act prior to this amendment conferred
power on the Government to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A
""' shall not apply, if in its opinion the provisions of sub-sections (1),
(1-A) and (2) of Section 17 were applicable. The High Court was of the
view that on the issue of such a direction by the Government, a decla-
/
t ration could be made as contemplated by Section 6 of the Act in F
respect of the land at any time after the publication of the Notification
under Section 4 of the Act. According to the High Court, prior to the
amendment of Seciion 17(4) of the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, a
declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act could be made
at any time along with the publication of the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act but after the amendment of Section 17(4), a G
declaration as contemplated by Section 6 of the Act can be made oQly
•'
"after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1)".
" In view of this amendment Notification under Section 6 of the Act had
to be made after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published. The expression "after the date of publication of the notifi-
cation" as added to sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act contemp- H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A
lated the issue of Notification under Section 6 of the Act only after the
publication of Notification and under Section 4(1) of the Act. The High +
Court was of the view that prior to the amendment, a declaration
under Section 6 of the Act could be made simultaneously with the
publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. But after
the amendment, a declaration can only be made "after the date of
B publication of the Notification" under Section 4. The High Court came
to the conclusion that there must be difference of dates between the
date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4 and Section
6. After the Amendment, according to the High Court, both the notifi-
cations cannot be published on the same date. The publication of the
Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on the same date would
be contrary to Section 17(4) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984
c and would render the Notification under Section 6 of the Act invalid.
The High Court found that the Notification under Section 6 of the Act
containing declaration that the land in dispute was needed for a public
purpose was issued on 6th of May, 1985 and published simultaneously
along with the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on the same
P date, namely, May 22, 1985. This, according to the High Court, was in
clear violation of Section 17(4) of the Act. In this view, the impugned
Notification under Section 6 was rendered illegal and as such the
appellants were not entitled to take possession of the respondents'
land. The High Court accordingly quashed the notification dated 6th~
May, 1985 issued under Section 6 of the Act.
E
The short question with which these appeals are concerned is,
whether the declaration under Section 6 of the Act could be issued
simultaneously along with the notification under Section 4 of the Act
in view of the amendment made to Section 17(4) of the Act. To decide
the question it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of the Act after
F amendment. Section 4 of the Act envisages publication of preliminary
notification where it appears to the appropriate Government that land
in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public
purpose or for a company, it enjoins in such a situation that a notifica-
tion to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in
certain other daily newspapers and the substance of the notification is
O to be given at a convenient places in that locality. It is not necessary to
dilate on the subsequent procedure as contemplated by Section 4 of
the Act. Section 5 of the Act en joins payment of damages on the
acquisition. Section 5-A of the Act provides for hearing of objection
which has been notified under Section 4 of the Act and the procedure
thereto. Thereafter comes declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The
fI sections provide that after consideration of the report, if any, made
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NJGAM IMUKHARJI, J.[ 99

under Section SA that a particular land is needed for a public purpose A
or for a company, a declaration in the manner enjoined in section 6 of
the Act shall be made. The provisions of procedure to be followed on
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, are not directly relevant for the
purpose of these appeals. Section 17 of the Act with which we are
directly concerned here provides with cases of urgency where the B
Government can dispense with some of the provisions of the Act
especially regarding intiviting objections and hearing of these.

As mentioned hereinbefore, several objections challenging the
acquisition had been admitted by the High Court of Allahabad and
~ so.me of these are the subject matter of appeal in this Court and stay
orders preventing the taking of the possession of the land pursuant to c
the acquisition had been granted on the basis that in view of the Divi-
)(, sion Bench judgment under appeal lierein of the Allahabad High
Court there could not be any simultaneous notification under Section 4
and declaration under Section 6 of the Act even in a case where by
virtue by invocation of the emergency provisions Section 5-A of the D
Act need not be complied with. The Government contends that even
after the amendment of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act it is
possible to have such simultaneous notification under Section 4 and
declaration under Section 6 of the Act in cases where the emergency
)'.._ provisins had been invoked. According to the State, a large number of
cases have been filed and stay orders obtained from the Court particu- E
Jars whereof have been mentioned in the grounds of appeal herein. It
was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the substitution of the
... words "after the publication of the notification" by the words "after .
the date of the notification" in ~uh-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act
has not made any change in law and as such simultaneous publication

t on one and the same date of the notification under Section 4 and F
declaration under section 6 of the Act in case of urgency where
Section 5-A had been made inapplicable prior to the amendment by
Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 have been upheld in a number of deci-
sions of this Court and this position, it was submitted, continues to be
valid even after the amendment by Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984. In
order to appreciate the contentions urged in support of this submission, G
it is necessary to note the significant changes that have been made by the
Amending Act No. 68of1984 in Sections 4 and 6 as well as Section 17 of
the Act. The relevant sub-sections of sections prior and subsequent to
"" the amendment are as follows:

"Unamended Section 4( 1) H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

A
Whenever it appears to the appropriate government that
land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for
-+·
any public purpose a notification to that effect shall be
published in the official gazette and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such notification to
be given at convenient places in the said locality."
B .~
"Amended Section 4( I)

Whenever it appears to the appropriate government that
land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for ;,.._;:
any public purpose or for a company a notification to that
effect shall be published in the official gazette and in two
c daily newspapers circulating that locality cif which at least
one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall )'
cause public notice of the substance of such notification to
be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of
the dates of such publication and the giving of such public
D notice, being hereinafter referred to as to the date of publi-
cation of the notification."

"Unamended Section 6(2)
~.
Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette
E and shall state the district or other territorial division in
which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is
needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have ~
(
been made of the land, the place where such plan may be
inspected.'' •
F "Amended Section 6(2)
\"
Every declaration shall be published in the official Gazette
and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in
which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the
regional language, and the Collector shall cause public
G notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at
convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates
of such publication and giving of such public notice, being
hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the
declaration) and such declaration shall state the district or
other territorial division in which the land is situate, the
H purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and,
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM [MUKHARJI, J.J 101

where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place A
where such ~Ian may be inspected."

"Unamended Section 17(4)

In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-sectio·n (1) B
of sub-section (2) are applicable the appropriate Govern-
ment may direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not
apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made
under Section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the
publication of the notification under Section 4( 1)."

"Amended Section 17(4) c

In the case of any land to which in the opinion of the
appropriate Government the provisions ohub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Govern-
ment may direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not D
apply and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made
under Section 6 in respect of the land at any time (after the
date of the publication of the notification under section 4,
y_ sub-section (1)."

It was contended that the amendment of Section 17(4) by he E
words "after the date of the publication of the notification" was neces-
sitated because of the change of the expression in sub-section 1 of the
Section (4) which for the first time gave a definition of the date of the
publication of the notification. Similarly, in Section 6(2), the last date
of the publication as enjoined in Section 6 and as set out hereinbefore·
had been defined as the date of publication. For this purpose, it was F
necessary to introduce the expression "after the date of the publication
of the notification" under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. It
was submitted that the proceedings for acquisition of land commenced
from the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
and under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act any person
interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) as G
,;._ being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a ·
company may within 30 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. In ordinary cases after hearing objections,
the State Government makes a decision regarding the acquisition of
land and in case it is decided by the State Government that the land is H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A needed for a public purpose or for a company, a declaration to that
effect is enjoined to be made by the State Government under Section
6( 1) of the Act. Since in normal course declaration is made after objec-
tions under Section 5-A of the Act have been considered and disposed
of, the date of the declaration under Section 6(2) of the Act has to be
subsequent to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the
B Act, but in a case where objections under Section 5-A have been
dispensed with, simultaneous publication on one and the same date of
the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section
6(1) and (2) of the Act can be made simultaneously, was the position
before the amendment of the Act before 1984. That this was the posi-
tion in law, cannot be disputed in view of the decision of this Court in
C Smt. Somavanti & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors., (supra) which
conclusively held that in a case where Section 5-A was out of the way,
publication of both notifications under Section 4 and declaration under
Section 6 in the same issue of the Gazette is not irregular. It may be
mentioned that in that case it was found that in the official Gazette of
25th August, 1961 a notification as published under Section 4 of the
D Act to the effect that land belonging to the petitioners was likely to be
needed by the Government at public expenses for a public purpose,
namely, for setting up of a factory for manufacturing various ranges of
refrigeration compressors and ancillary equipments. The Government
had directed that action under Section 17 of the Act shall be taken
because there was urgency and that the provisions of Section 5-A shall
E not apply to the acquisition. In the same gazette, another notification
under Section 6 of the Act dated August 19, 1961 was published to the
effect that the Governor of Punjab was satisfied that the land was
required by the Government at public expenses for public purpose.
The notification provided for immediate taking of the possession of
the land under Section 17(2)(c) of the Act. A Bench of five Judges of
F this Court inter alia held that simultaneous publication of the notifica-
tion under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in a
situation where section 5-A was out of the way was not bad.

This view was reiterated by this Court in Babu Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1713. A Bench of two Judges
G in that decision held that there is nothing in the provisions of the Act
which would come in the way of the Government issuing a notification
under Section 6 immediately after notification under Section 4 if on
applying urgency clause, enquiry under Section 5-A is dispensed with
and both could be issued on the same day. '

H The question is, has the position changed with the changes noted·
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM IMUKHARJI, J.] 103

in law hereinbefore. Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned counsel who argued A
this case before us had submitted that the use of the words "the date of
the publication" under Section 4 as well as Section 6 of the Act has the
sequel to the amendment made in Sections .4 and 6 of the AC!. It was
submitted tha( after enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with by
application of emergency provisions, there could not be any reason or
justification for not allowing publication simultaneously of the notifi- B
cation under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act
especially so where in urgent cases it was vitally necessary for the
Government to do so. It was submitted that where under sub-section
(2) of Section 17 of the"Act there is urgency for acquisition owing to
sudden change in various circumstances, immediate possession may
have to be taken for the purpose of maintaining either the structure or
system or irrigation or water drainage, road communication or electri-
c
city, and any delay in taking immediate possession by not publishing
the declaration under Section 6 and notification under Section 4
simultaneously on one and the same date may result in great catast-
rophe. It was further submitted that the expression "after the date of
the publication of notification" have no bearing on the exercise of D
power or urgency necessitating simultaneous publication of the notifi-
cation under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that.the acquisition
proceedings commence with the publication of the notification under
Section 4 of the Act, besides publication of notice of substance of such
notificatibn at convenient places in the locality. This was required to E
be done under Section 4(1) of the Act prior to the amendment of
Section 4(1) of the Act by Act No. 68 of 1984. As a result of amend-
ment of Section 4(1) by Act No. 68 of 1984, it is now laid down that
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act that land iu a locality is
needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company
shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers F
circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in a regional
language and the Collector shall also cause public notice of the sub-
stance of such notification, the last of the dates of such publication
being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the
notification. Similarly, under Section 6(2)wf the Act it has been pro-
vided that as a result of amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984 every G
declaration shall be published in the official gazette and two daily
newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of
which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector
shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be
given at convenient places in the locality in which the land is situated,
the last of the dates of such publication and the ~iving of such public H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of ----t.
'
the declaration. Under both Sections 6(2) and 4(1) the date of publica-
tion having been specified, amendment had to be made under sub-
section (4) of Section 17 of the Act and it was laid down that in case of
urgency the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of
Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply and it so directs that the declara-
B tion be made under Section 6 in respect of the land at any time after
the date of the publication of the notification under sub-sections (1) of
Section 4 and the addition of the words "the date of" have not brought
about any change in law at all. It was a verbal change necessitated by
the amendment in Section 4 and Section ·6 as noted above and the I
~,
position in law continues as it was before. Mr. Anil Dev Singh also
C supported Mr. Kacker appearing in other appeals being Civil Appeal
Nos. 1843 and 1844 of 1986.

On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Jain canvassed the view that if the
words have changed adherence must be given to the change of the
expression used. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Jain to a decision of
D this Court in Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja
Ram Jaiswal, [1985] 3 SCC 1. There, the facts were, however, slightly
different. In that case the Hindi Sahitaya Sammelan, Prayag had
obtained a large open land from Municipal Board in 1953 for con-
structing Hindi Sangrahalaya, but the land was lying vacant and un-
utilised. In the vicinity of the Sammelan's campus was the land of the
E respondent who with a view to construct a sound-proof air-conditioned
cinema theatre thereon sought certificate of approval from the D.M.
under Rule 3 read with Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules,
1951. The Sammelan vehemently opposed to that proposal on the
ground that a cinema theatre in the vicinity would be destructive of
culture and academic environment of the institute. Overruling the
F objection, the D.M. granted the certificate to the respondent. There-
upon, the Sammelan made an application to the Government for
acquiring the respondent's land as, according to it, the land was
needed by it for the purpose of extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya,
though later it shifted its stand to need for construction of Natyashala
and Rangmanch and ultimately maintained that it would devise
G schemes for proper utilisation as and when the land is made available.
Although the Collector on whom the statute confers power to initiate
proceeding for acquisition himself was satisfied that Sammelan sought
acquisition not because it required the land but it wanted to stop or do
away with the cinema theatre, but ultimately a notification was issued
under Section 4( I) of the Act stating that the land was needed for a
H public purpose, namely, for extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of the
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM [MUKHARJI, J.] 105
-+. Sammelan. The notification was issued in the official gazette and the A
substance of the notification was also published in the locality. But
since the plot number of the land was wrongly mentioned in the notifi-
cation, a corrigendum was published cancelling and superseding the
earlier notification and correcting the plot number. The notice of the
substance of the second notification was not published in the locality.

·~· As the earlier notification had no relevance to the plot of the respon-
dent, there was admittedly no notice of the substance of the notifica-
B

tions in the locality. Questions for determination were:

1. Whether the requirement under the second part of Section
4(1) regarding giving public notice of the substance of the
notification in the locality is mandatory and its non-compli- C
ance is fatal to the acquisition proceedings:

2. Whether the acquisition proceeding was vitiated by legal ma/a
fides;

3. Whether the notification under Section 4 was invalid as it had D
been issued without first complying with Rule 4 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963?

This Court answered the first two questions in the affirmative
and left the third question open. This Court held that the publication
of the notice in the locality as required in the second part of Section E
4( 1) of the Act was mandatory and unless that notice was given in
accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisi-
tion proceedings would be vitiated. The Court further held that the

)
i assumption that the sole purpose behind publication of a notice in the
locality under Section 4(1) was to give an opportunity to the person
interested in land to object to the acquisition under Section 5-A of the F
Act was not well-founded. Therefore, it could not be said that where
such person files his objections the purpose was achieved and that the
failure to give public notice in the locality needed not to be treated as
fatal to the proceedings. We have examined the observations of this
Court at page 13 of judgment upon which reliance has been placed on
behalf of the respondent. We are, however, of the opinion that in view G
of the significant difference in the set of facts with which this Court was
dealing with in that case, the observations therein are not relevant for
our present purpose.

Reliance was also placed on certain observations of this Court in
Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.R. Shanmugham Chetty & Ors., [1987) 2 H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

SCC 707 where this Court, dealing with the provisions of Section
A
10(3)(c) of T.N. Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 observed
that it was a settled rule of the interpretation of statutes that provisions
of an Act should be interpreted in such manner as not to render any of
its provisions otiose unless there were compelling reasons for the Court
to resort to that extreme contigency. It was submitted that the use of
B the expression "after the date of the publication of the notification" in
sub-section (4) of Section 17 would become otiose if it is not construed
as holding that simultaneous publication of notification under Section
4 and declaration under Section 6 are not permissible. '::,._,
In Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar &
C Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 319 this Court had to deal with Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950 and it was observed that while interpreting statutes >1
plain meaning has to be ascertained and the statute has to be read as a
whole and in the context and that statutory rules should be harmoni-
ously read with the statute. The basic principle, it was reiterated at page
325 of the report, of construction of every statute was to find out what
D is clearly stated and not to speculate upon latent imponderables. The
scheme of the Act also must be looked into. In interpreting the
statutes it is safer to rely on the obvious meaning rather than to investi-
gate the imponderables. _:..,·

It is true that the expression "after the date of the publication of
E the notification" introduced in Section 17(4) can be explained away as
making no change from the provisions of law by reading it along with
the amendment made in Section 4 whereby in different situation in
section 4, the last date of publication of the notice has been deter- \
mined as the date of the publication of the notification and similarly in / ·
Section 6 a date of the publication of the notice has been provided for.
F But the words "after the date of the publication of the notification" in
sub-section (4) of Section 17 read simpliciter clearly indicate that
declaration under Section 6 had to be made after the publication of the
notification meaning thereby subsequent to the date of the publication of
the notification. It appears to us that there is nothing in the scheme of
the Act which militates against such a construction. At times where
G emergency provisions are invoked emergent action may be taken but ·¥
in such a situation in view of the state of law that was before it, the
legislature has made a conscious change which cannot be explained
away merely because this is as a consequence of the changes in Sec-
tions 4 and 6 of the Act.

H Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on Lord Howard
STAIB OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM IMUKHARJI, J.] 107

de Walden v. !RC, [1948] 2 AER 825 for the proposition that no A
alteration in meaning by alteration of language can result unless the
requirement of the English language demand it or those requirements
permit it and the sense of the section demands it. In our opinion, in
this case in view of the alteration of the language and meaning and the
meaning of the language used and the sense will be in consonance with
B
the interpretation that the change was intended. Similarly, in Hopes v.
Hopes, I1948] 2 AER 920, it was the proposition that changes in the
word may be because the draftsman wanted to improve the style. But
in this case the style is not improved and the expression 'after the date'
as indicated above, becomes otiose. It is job of the Court to interpret
the intention of the legislature by the words used. The fairest and the
most rational method to interpret the will of the legislature is by exp- c
loring his intentions at the time when the law was made by signs, the
most natural and probable, says Blackstone in his 'Commentaries on
the Laws of England' {fascimile of 1st edition of 1765, University of
Chicago Press, 1979) Volume, I, p 59. And these signs are either the
words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or
D
the spirit and reason of the law. The words have to be understood in
their usual and most known signification. If that be so, then the legisla-
ture must have had some intention fo chosing the expression 'after'
before "date of publication of the notification" in sub-section (4) of
Section 17 of the Act while making amendment by Amending Act No.
68 of 1984. It is true that there were some changes giving the meaning
of the date of the publication in Section 4(1) and (2) as well as Section E
6(2) of the Act. But for that, there was no need for the use of the

I expression 'after the date'. If that be the position, then we must accept
the interpretation put upon the amended clause by the High Court in
the judgment under appeal. It will, however, be upon to the appellants
to issue a fresh declaration under section 6, if so advised, within the
F
period contemplated in the proviso to section 6(1) of the Act read with
its first explanation.

In that view of the matter the apppeal must fail and is accord-
ingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

In the view that we have taken, Civil Appeals Nos. 1843 and 1844 G
of 1986 are also dismissed without costs.

N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.