SYED HASAN RASUL NUMA AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                SYED HASAN RASUL NUMA AND ANR.
                                                                                  A
                               v.
                    UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                             NOVEMBER 15, 1990

        [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY 'AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.]                              ij

          Delhi Development Act 1947-Section 44-Master Plan for
    Delhi-Modifications made-Change proposed from 'residential' to
    'recreational'-Requisites of the notice and necessity for publication-
    Mandatory.

.          Respondent No. 2, Delhi Development Authority, issued a public
    notice dated 5th July 1975 stating that the Central Government pro-
                                                                                  c
    poses to make modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi with respect to
    an area known as 'Dargah Shaheed Khan'. It was notified that the land
    use of the area in question was proposed to he changed from 'residen-
    tial' to 'recreational' and any person having any objection or suggestion     D
    to the proposed modification could send his objections/suggestions to
    the Delhi Development Authority within thirty days from the date
    thereof. The appellants sent in their objection on 18,10.1975 that is two
    and half months after the date of expiry of the last date for r.ting the
    objections. The authorities seem to have not considered that objection.
    thereupon the appellants rited a writ petition in the High Court chal-        E
    lenging the validity of the public notice contending that the public notice
    was not given publicity in the manner prescribed under Section 44 of
    the Delhi Development Act 1957; as it was neither alTJXed in conspi-
    cuous place within the locality where the land is located nor was the
    same proclaimed by the heat of the drum. According to the appellants
    the provisions of section 44 are mandatory. The High Court having             F
    dismissed the writ petition, the appellants have rited this appeal, after
    obtaining special leave. The same contentions have been reiterated by
    the appellants before this Court.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court,
                                                                                  G
           HELD: In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate
    too much on one word and pay too little attention to the other words. No
    provision in the statute and no word in the section may be construed in
    isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally
    and in the context in which it is used. [170E-F]
                                                                                  H

                                        165
    166         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

           Section 44 requires that the notice signed by the Secretary of the
A   Authority shall be widely made known in the locality to be affected by
    the proposed modification to the Master Plan. It shall be published by
    (i) affixing copies of the notice in conspicuous public places within the
    said locality or (ii) publishing the same by best of drum; or (iii) ad-
    vertisement in local newspaper. [170B-C I
B
          There are three alternate methods prescribed. The authorities
    will have to follow any of the two methods. This is mandatory. There is
    no discretion in this regard. The discretion however, is to follow more
    than the two methods. It is also discretionary to follow any other means
    of publication that the Secretary may think fit. That is left to the Sec-
    retary. This appears to be the only reasonable and sensible view to be
c   taken by the Overall structure of the section. [170G-171A)

          In the instant case, the notice has been published only in the local
    newspapers, namely, the Daily Pratap. The Hindustan Times. This is
    only one of the three means of publication provided under Section 44
D   and it apparently falls short of the mandatory requirements of the
    Section. Since the provisions of Section,44 have not been complied with,
    the notice in question has no validity and the action taken pursuant
    thereto has also no validity. [172B-C)

          Khub Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1967) 1 SCR 120;
E   Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jais-
    wa/ etc., (1985) 37 sec 1, referred to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1906
    of 1976.

F        From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1976 of the Delhi High
    Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 59 of 1976.

          Rajinder Sachhar, B.V. Desai and D.B. Kalia for the Appellants.

         V.C. Mahajan, V.B. Saharya, V.N. Ganpule and C.V. Subba
G   Rao for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Delhi Development Authority
    issued public notice dated 5th July 1975 stating that the Central
H   Government proposes to make modifications to the Master Plan for
                       HASAN RASUL v. U.0.1. [SHETfY, J.l                 167

     Delhi with respect to an area measuring about 3.66 hects (9 acres),
                                                                                A
     known as Dargah Shaheed Khan, falling in zone D-5 (D.l.Z. area)
     bounded by 45.72 meter (150 ft) r/w Panchkuin Road in the North,
     45.72 meter (150 ft) Ramakrishna Road in the East and residential
     area in the South-West. It was notified that the land use of this area
     was proposed to be changed from 'Residential' to 'Recreational (Dis-
     trict Park and Open Spaces)' and any person having any objection or        B
     suggestion with respect to the proposed modifications could send his
     objections or suggestions to the Secretary Delhi Development Autho-
     rity within thirty days from the date thereof.

           The first appellant claims to be a religious and charitable
     denomination being a dargah of late Hazarat Syed Hassan Rasul-
     Numa and the second appellant is the Sajjada Nashin (Spiritual             c
     perceptor) of the.first appellant. The first respon!dent is the Union of
     India. The second respondent is the Delhi Development Authority
     ("DDA").

            The appellants allege inter alia, that the need of converting the   D
      land use from 'residential' to 'recreational' appears to be a ruse to
      deprive the appellants the benefit of their land as there are a number
      of such r~oreational parks and open spaces in the vicinity as a mere
    · 1ook at the land use Map of the Master Plan for Delhi and the Delhi
      Guide Map, 1969 would show. They have named some of the centrally
      located parks like Budha Jayanti Park, Ravindra Rangashala and its        E
      forests, the Talkatora Garden and yet another across the Panchkuin
•     Road.

          The case of the appellants is that the said notice was not given
    publicity in the manner prescribed under Section 44 of the Delhi
    Development Act, 1957 ("Act"). It was not affixed in conspicuous            f
    places within the locality where the land is located, nor was proclaimed
    by the beat of drum. They were therefore, not aware of the notice and
    they could not file their objections within the specified period. It is
    also contended that the provisions of Section 44 are mandatory and the
    notice about the proposed change of land use ought to be published by
    two or more means prescribed under the section. However, when they          G
    came to know of the notice by other mearis, they sent their objections
    though belated. The objection was sent on 18th October, 1975 to the
    Secretary of DDA. The. authorities seem to have not considered that
    objection. With these and other allegations the appellants challenged
    the validity of the public notice. They moved the High Court for relief
    under Article 226 of the Constitution.                                      H
    168         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

          The claim was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court
A   perhaps, by way of preliminary hearing. Upon considering the affi-
    davits filed by the parties, the High Court rejected the writ petition
    with the following observations on the foregoing contentions:

               "It is not disputed that the petitioners did file objections to
B              the impugned notice though late. Therefore, we are of the
               opinion that even if it be assumed that the provisions of
               Section 44 of the Act are mandatory and the same have not
               been complied with in as much as publication of notice is
               not in two or more prescribed manners, the petitioners
               have not been prejudiced and there is no cause for interfe-
               rence under our writ jurisdiction."
c
          The appellants now appeal to this Court by Special Leave.

           There are two questions for decision: (i) whether the belated
    objection filed by the appellants has been considered by the autho-
D   rities? and (ii) what are the requirements of Section 44; whether they
    have been complied with in the instant case?

          The reasoning of the High Court is not readily comprehensible.
    There is no discussion in the judgment on any one of the questions. We
    may take up the questions in turn. On the first question, the respon-
E   dents while resisting the writ petition h_aye filed their respective
    affidavits in the High Court. The Secretary, ODA, in his affidavit has
    stated that the objection of the appellants was transmitted to the Cent-     •
    ral Government for consideration. It was his case that the Central
    Government alone was competent to consider the objections received
    from the interested persons against the public notice. Mr. K. Biswas,
F   Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of
    India, in his affidavit has, inter alia, stated:

                " ... That a meeting was taken on 25.10.1975 under the
                Chairmanship of then Secretary to consider all objections/
                suggestions received in response to inter alia the Public
G               Notice dated the 5th July 1975, published by the ODA.
                However, as the letter dated 18.10.1975 containing the
                objections of the petitioners was received in this Ministry
                on 21.10.1975 that is, after the issue of the Memorandum
                dated 17.10.1975 convening the aforesaid meeting, the said
                objections could not be included in the Agenda for the
H               meeting. However, such of those objections, which were
                       HASAN RASUL v. U.0.1. [SHEITY,J.]                   169

                received late (including those of the petitioners) were read
                                                                                A
                out in the meeting and were duly considered in the meet-
                ing. Since the objections raised by the petitioners were
                untenable they were ruled out. Only those objections/sug-
                gestions which were included in the agenda and which were
                of any significance found place in the minutes of the meet-
                ing. Thus it would be seen that although the petitioners · B
                filed objections two and half months after the expiry of the
                last date for filing objections, it was considered in the meet-
                ing held on the 25th October, 1975".

,          It is evident from these averments that the appellants' statement
    of objections was not listed in the agenda of the meeting convened for
    consideration of all the objections received. It is, however, claimed         c
    that the appellants' objection was read and ruled out in the meeting.
    But there is-no record to indicate that it was considered and rejected.
    At any rate, it is not borne out from the proceedings of the meeting. In
    fact, it is admitted that there is no record with regard to disposal of the
    objection in question. It is not as if the proceedings of the meeting are     D
    not recorded and maintained. It is very much there, but it is confined
    only to the listed items in the agenda of the meeting. When the pro-
    ceedings of the meeting are recorded, one would naturally expect that
    all that transpired in the meeting should find a place in the minutes of
    the meeting. In the absence of any such record, we find it difficult to
    accept the mere allegation of the respondents that the appellants             E
    objection like any other objection was considered by the authorities.
    The High Court therefore, seems to be in error in assuming that there
    was no prejudice to ihe appellants. We do not however, mean to say
    that the appellants have a right to have their belated objection con-
    sidered by the authorities. If there was valid publication of the notice
    as prescribed under the law, they ought to have filed the objection           F
    within the period specified in the notice. They could not file their
    objection after the prescribed period and complain that they have
    been prejudiced by the non-consideration of the objection. The pre-
    judice could be presumed only when the objection filed within the
    prescribed period is not considered by the competent authorities.
                                                                                  G
          The second question relates to the requirements of Section 44 of
    the Act and its compliance in the instant case. This is the primary and
    all-important question for consideration. Section 44 provides:

                     "44. Public notice how to be made Known-Every
                public notice given under the Act shall be in writing over        H
    170         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [ 1990) Supp. 3 S.C.R.

                the signature of the Secretary to the Authority and shall be
A
                widely made known in the locality to be affected thereby by
                affixing copies thereof in conspicuous public places within
                the said locality or by publishing the same by beat of drum
                or by advertisement in local newspaper or by any two or
                more of these means, and by any other means that Secre-
B               tary may think fit."

           It requires that the notice signed by the Secretary of the Autho-
    rity shall be widely made known in the locality to be affected by the
    proposed modification to the Master Plan. It shall be published by (i)
    affixing copies of the notice in conspicuous public places within the
    said locality; or (ii) publishing the same by beat of drum; or (iii)
c   advertisement in local newspaper. These are the three alternate
    methods of publication prescribed under the Section. The section than
    speaks of: "or by any two or more of these means, and by any other
    means that Secretary may think fit". This is the last portion of the
    section which is the bone of contention between the parties. It can be
D   conveniently split up into two parts. The first part reads "by any two or
    more of these means" and the next one reads "and by any other means
    that Secretary may think fit". Counsel for the respondents contends
    that the last part of the section provides for another alternate method
    of publication of the notice and if there is publication in any one of the
    methods provided in the section, it would meet the statutory require-
E   ment. The argument does seem to proceed only on the word 'or' used
    immediately preceding the last part of the section. But in matters of
    interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and
    pay too little attention to the other words. No provision in the statute
    and no word in the section may be construed in isolation. Every provi-
    sion and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in
F   which it is used. No doubt the provisions of Section 44 are not happily
    worded, but if we read carefully the terms of the section, the submis-
    sion of counsel for the appellants appears to be wholly untenable. The
     words used in both the limbs of the last part of the section are signi-
    ficant. The first one refers to 'these means' and the second speaks of
     ·other means'. The emphasis by the draftsman is on the words 'these
G    means' which plainly mean any two or more of the means provided in
    the Section. There are three alternate methods prescribed. The
     authorities will have to follow any of the two methods. This is manda-
     tory. There is no discretion in this regard. The discretion however, is
     to follow more than the two methods. It is also discretionary to follow
     any other means of publication that the Secretary may think fit. That is
H    left to the Secretary. This a pears to be the only reasonable and sensi-
                  HASAN RASUL v. U.0.1. [SHETIY, J.]                  171

ble view to be taken by the overall structure of the section.
                                                                            A
       Section ll(a) of the Act provides procedure for modification to
the Master Plan and the zonal development plan. Sub-section (3)
thereof provides that before making any modifications.to any plan, the
Authority or, as the case may be, the Central Government shall pub-
lish a notice inviting objections and suggestions from persons with         B
respect to the proposed modification before the date specified in t~e
notice. This is to give an opportunity to persons who are likely to be
affected by the modification of the Plan to file objections and sugges-
tions. Indeed, the interested persons or the persons who are likely to
be affected have a right to file their objections and representations
within the time specified. They have further right to have the objec-
tions considered by the competent authorities. In order to effectuate       c
these rights, the prescribed means of publication must be faithfully
followed giving the persons clear notice as specified in the statute. The
provision providing such notice to persons whose rights or intersts are
likely to be impaired must always be considered as mandatory. As
otherwise, it would defeat the very purpose of giving public notice         D
inviting objections and suggestions against the proposed action.

      There is a broad basis for the view that we have taken from the
decisions of this Court although on the provisions of other enactment.
The section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for publi-
cation of the notification in the Official Gazette and in two daily news-   E
papers circulating in that locality where the la.nd is situated of which
atleast one shall be in the regional language. The Section 4(1) further
provides that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of
such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.
In Khub Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1967] 1SCR120, Subba
Rao, C.J., while construing the object and scope of Section 4(1) expres-    F
sed the view that provisions of the Section requiring public notice are
mandatory and the legislature thought that it was absolutely necessary
that the owner of the land should have a clear notice of the proposed
acquisition. It was said that the fact that the owner may have notice of
the particulars of the intended acquisition by any other means does not
serve the purpose of Section 4 and does not absolve from the obliga-        G
tion to follow the method of publication of the notification. It was also
observed that the notification issued under Section 4(1) without
complying with the mandatory direction would be void and the land
acquisition proceedings taken pursuant thereto would also be void.
This view has been reiterated in a number of subsequent decisions of
this Court. In Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr. v.        H
    172        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [ 1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A   Raja Ram Jaiswal, etc., [ 1985] 3 SCC 1 most of the earlier decisions
    have been referred to and the view taken in the Khub Chand case has
    been reiterated.

          In the instant case, the notice has been published only in the
    local newspapers, namely, the Daily Pratap. The Hindustan Times,
B
    the Statesman, The Indian Express and the Navbharat Times. This is
    only one of the three means of publication provided under Section 44
    and it apparently falls short of the mandatory requirements of the
    Section. Since the provisions of the Sectidn 44 have not been complied
    with, the notice in question has no validity and the action taken
    pursuant thereto has also no validity.
c
           In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court
    is set aside, the impugned public notice is quashed with costs here and
    in the court below.

    Y. Lal                                                 Appeal allowed.




                                                                               ,'