Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
PETITIONER:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1989
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
RANGNATHAN, S.
CITATION:
1989 AIR 682 1989 SCR (1) 92
1989 SCC (1) 591 JT 1989 (1) 58
1989 SCALE (1)50
ACT:
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 declaration can be issued simulta-
neously with section 4 notification--To be issued on a
subsequent date.
Statutory Interpretation: Job of the Court--Interpret
the intention of legislature by the words used--Explore
intentions at time the law was made.
HEADNOTE:
The U.P. Legislature enacted in 1973 the Uttar Pradesh
Urban Planning and Development Act. On or about 11th Septem-
ber, 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 declaration under section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 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 III.
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 on the 6th May, 1985 declaring that the lands of the
respondents were needed for a public purpose viz., construc-
tion of market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Samiti. The
Notification further contained a declaration that since
there was urgency for the acquisition the provisions of
action 17(IA) and section 17(4) of the Act shall apply and
the provisions of section 5A shall not apply. On the same
day i.e. on 6th May, 1985 another Notification was issued
under section 6 making a declaration
93
that the laud was required for the public purpose viz.,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
construction of a market yard. That Notification also con-
tained direction as contemplated 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 petitions and contended before the Division Bench of
the High Court that in view of the amendments introduced by
the Land Acquisition (Amendment) 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.
The High Court was of the view that prior to the amend-
ment, a declaration under section 6 could be made simultane-
ously with the publication of the Notification under section
4(1), but after the amendment, a declaration can only be
made "after the date of publication of the Notification
under section 4(1)" and came to the conclusion that there
must be difference of dates between the date of the publica-
tion 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 such the appellants were
not entitled to take possession of the respondents’ land. It
accordingly quashed the Notification dated 6th May, 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 because of the change of the
expressions in sub-section (1) of 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 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.
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,
94
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 publication 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-G]
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]
2. At times where 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
sections 4 and 6 of the Act. [106G-H]
Smt. Somawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1963] 2 SCR
775: Babu Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1979)
SC 1713; Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v.
Raja Ram Jaiswal, [1985] 3 SCC 1 referred to.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
3. The basic principle of construction of every statute
is to find out what 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 investigate the
imponderables. [106D]
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 legisla-
ture is by exploring intentions at the time when the law was
made by signs, the most natural and probable. These signs
are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the
effects and the consequence or the spirit and reason of the
law. The words have to be understood in their usual and most
known signification. [107C-D]
Lord Howard de Walden v. IRC, [1948] 2 AER 825; Hopes v.
Hopes. [1948] 2 AIR 920; referred to.
95
Blackstone Commentaries in the Laws of England, Vol. 1
p. 59 referred to.
5. It will be open to the appellants to issue a fresh
declaration under section 6, if so advised, within the
period contemplated in the proviso to section 6(1) of the
Act read with its first Explanation. [107F]
JUDGMENT:
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. 2042 of 1986.
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.
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 appro-
priate to deal with the 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
controversy involved it would be necessary to refer to
certain facts of the case.
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act was
enacted by the U.P. Legislature in 1973. On or about 11th of
September, 1974, Lucknow had been declared to be a develop-
ment area by a notification. On or about 24th of September,
1984 Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was made effec-
tive subsequent to the 24th of 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 pub-
lished. On the 28th December, 1984 Notification under Sec-
tion 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in
respect of L.D.A. Office/Nagar Maha Palika
96
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
Office and other offices on B.N. Road was published. On the
2nd January, 1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and decla-
ration 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 Sec-
tion 6 of the Act in respect of Extension of Kursi Road upto
Mahanagar through Vishnupun was published. On 21st February,
1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act in respect of Ujariyaon Housing Scheme
(Somti Nagar), Phase-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
lands, if not already taken over, in, case notifications
under section 4(1) and section 6 of the Act have been passed
simultaneously.
As mentioned hereinbefore, we 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. 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 Noti-
fication under the said Act was issued on 6th of May, 1985
declaring that the land in question including the respond-
ents’ land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for
construction of market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Kichha. The Notification further contained a decla-
ration that since there was urgency for the acquisition, 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 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 (l-
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 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 introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amend-
ment) Act, 1984 (Act No.
97
68 of 1984) the declaration as contemplated under Section 6
of the Act 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 Amend-
ing Act No. 58 of 1984 it was permissible for the Government
to issue Notification under Section 4 of the Act and to make
declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act
simultaneously and it was further permissible to publish
both the notification simultaneously as held by this Court
in Srnt Sornawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1963] 2 SCR
775. The High Court noted that normally after the issue of
the Notification under Section 4 of the Act objections are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
invited as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act and after
holding enquiry the Collector submits report to the Govern-
ment and on consideration of the same, the Government makes
declaration as contemplated by Section 6 of the Act. Posses-
sion of the land is taken after the award is declared. But
in case of urgency where the Government considers it neces-
sary to 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 Govern-
ment 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 the Act. Section 17(4) of the
Act prior to this amendment conferred power on the Govern-
ment to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not
apply, if in its opinion the provisions of sub-sections (1),
(l-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 declaration could be made as contemplated by
Section 6 of the Act in 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 Section 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 Noti-
fication under Section 4 of the Act but after the amendment
of Section 17(4), a declaration as contemplated by Section 6
of the Act can be made only "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 notification" as added to sub-section (4) of Section
17 of the Act contemp-
98
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
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 Notifi-
cation under Section 4 and Section 6. After the Amendment,
according to the High Court, both the notifications cannot
be published on the same date. The publication of the Noti-
fication 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 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 declara-
tion that the land in dispute was needed for a public pur-
pose was issued on 6th of May, 1985 and published simultane-
ously along with the Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act on the same 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.
The short question with which these appeals are con-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
cerned is, whether the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act could be issued simultaneously along with the notifica-
tion 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
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 notification to that
effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in
certain other daily newspapers and the substance of the
notification is 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 enjoins 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 Sec-
tion 6 of the Act. The sections provide that after consider-
ation of the report, if any, made
99
under Section 5A that a particular land is needed for a
public purpose or for a company, a declaration in the manner
enjoined in section 6 of the Act shah be made. The provi-
sions 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 urgen-
cy where the Government can dispense with some of the provi-
sions of the Act especially regarding intiviting objections
and hearing of these.
As mentioned hereinbefore, several objections challeng-
ing the acquisition had been admitted by the High Court of
Allahabad and some 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 the acquisition had been
granted on the basis that in view of the Division Bench
judgment under appeal herein 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 provi-
sions Section 5-A of the 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 declara-
tion under Section 6 of the Act in cases where the emergency
provisions had been invoked. According to the State, a large
number of cases have been filed and stay orders obtained
from the Court particulars 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 sub-section (4) of Section 17
of the Act has not made any change in law and as such simul-
taneous publication on one and the same date of the notifi-
cation under Section 4 and 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 decisions 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 sup-
port of this submission, it is necessary to note the signif-
icant changes that have been made by the Amending Act No. 68
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
of 1984 in Sections 4 and 6 as well as Section 17 of the
Act. The relevant sub-sections of sections prior and subse-
quent to the amendment are as follows:
"Unamended Section 4(1)
100
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 notifica-
tion to be given at convenient places in the said locality."
"Amended Section 4(1)
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
daily newspapers circulating that locality of which at least
one shall be in the regional language and the Collector
shall cause public notice of the substance of such notifica-
tion to be given at convenient places in the said locality
the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of
such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as to the
date of publication of the notification."
"Unamended Section 6(2)
Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette
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."
"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
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 purpose for which it is needed, its approximate
area, and,
101
where a plan shall have been made of the land,
the place where such plan 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-section (1) of sub-section
(2) are applicable the appropriate Government
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)
In the case of any land to which in the opin-
ion of the appropriate Government the provi-
sions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
are applicable, the appropriate Government 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
respect of the land at any time (after the
date of the publication of the notification
under section 4, sub-section (1)."
It was contended that the amendment of Section 17(4) by
he words "after the date of the publication of the notifica-
tion" was necessitated because of the change of the expres-
sion 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 necessary to introduce the expres-
sion "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 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
102
needed for a public purpose or for a company, a declaration
to that effect is enjoined to be made by the State Govern-
ment under Section 6(1) of the Act. Since in normal course
declaration is made after objections 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 Act, but in a case where objections under Sec-
tion 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 position
in law, cannot be disputed in view of the decision of this
Court in 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 notifi-
cations 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 offi-
cial Gazette of 25th August, 1961 a notification as pub-
lished under Section 4 of the 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 not apply to the acquisi-
tion. In the same gazette, another notification under Sec-
tion 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 this Court inter alia
held that simultaneous publication of the notification under
Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
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 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 immediate-
ly 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.
The question is, has the position changed with the changes
noted
103
in law hereinbefore. Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned counsel who
argued 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 Act. It was submitted that 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 notification 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 electricity, and any delay in taking imme-
diate 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 catastrophe. It
was further submitted that the expression "after the date of
the publication of notification" have no bearing on the
exercise of power or urgency necessitating simultaneous
publication of the notification 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 notifica-
tion under Section 4 of the Act, besides publication of
notice of substance of such notification at convenient
places in the locality. This was required to 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 in 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 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 substance 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) of the Act it has been provided that as a
result of amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984 every 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 giving of such
public.
104
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the
publication of the declaration. Under both Sections 6(2) and
4(1) the date of publication having been specified, amend-
ment had to be made under subsection (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 declaration 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 necessitat-
ed by the amendment in Section 4 and Section 6 as noted
above and the position in law continues as it was before.
Mr. Anil Dev Singh also 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 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 ob-
tained a large open land from Municipal Board in 1953 for
constructing Hindi Sangrahalaya, but the land was lying
vacant and unutilised. In the vicinity of the Sammelan’s
campus was the land of the 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 objection, the D.M. granted the
certificate to the respondent. Thereupon, the Sammelan made
an application to the Government for acquiring the respond-
ent’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 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(1) of the Act stating that the
land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for extension
of Hindi Sangrahalaya of the
105
Sammelan. The notification was issued in the official ga-
zette and the substance of the notification was also pub-
lished in the locality. But since the plot number of the
land was wrongly mentioned in the notification, a corrigen-
dum 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 rele-
vance to the plot of the respondent, there was admittedly no
notice of the substance of the notifications in the locali-
ty. 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-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
ance is fatal to the acquisition proceedings:
2. Whether the acquisition proceeding was
vitiated by legal mala fides;
3. Whether the notification under Section 4
was invalid as it had been issued without
first complying with Rule 4 of the Land Acqui-
sition (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 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 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 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
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
106
SCC 707 where this Court, dealing with the provisions of
Section 10(3)(c) of T.N. Buildings (Lease and Control) Act,
1960 observed that it was a settled rule of the interpreta-
tion of statutes that provisions of an Act should be inter-
preted 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 contingency. It was submitted that
the use of 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 simul-
taneous publication of notification under Section 4 and
declaration under Section 6 are not permissible.
In Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar
& Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 319 this Court had to deal with Bihar
Land Reforms Act, 1950 and it was observed that while inter-
preting statutes 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 harmoniously 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 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 investigate the imponder-
ables.
It is true that the expression "after the date of the
publication of the notification" introduced in Section 17(4)
can be explained away as making no change from the provi-
sions 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 determined
as the date of the publication of the notification and
similarly in Section 6 a date of the publication of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
notice has been provided for. But the words "after the date
of the publication of the notification" in sub-section (4)
of Section 17 read simpliciter clearly indicate that decla-
ration 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. 1t appears to us
that there is nothing in the scheme of the Act which mili-
tates against such a construction. At times where 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 Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on Lord
Howard
107
de Walden v. IRC, [1948] 2 AER 825 for the proposition that
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. In our opinion, m 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 the interpretation that the change was intended. Simi-
larly, in Hopes v. Hopes, [1948] 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 exploring 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, Univer-
sity 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 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 legislature
must have had some intention in choosing the expression
’after’ before "date of publication of the notification" in
sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act while making amend-
ment 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 6(2)
of the Act. But for that, there was no need for the use of
the 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
period contemplated in the proviso to section 6(1) of the
Act read with its first explanation.
In that view of the matter the appeal must fail and is
accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
In the view that we have taken, Civil Appeals Nos. 1843
and 1844 of 1986 are also dismissed without costs.
N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.
108