Supreme Court of India
Syed Hasan Rasul Numa And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 15 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 711, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 165, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 711, 1991 (1) SCC 401, (1990) 4 JT 463 (SC), 1991 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 63, (1991) 1 LANDLR 595, (1991) 1 RRR 362, (1991) 43 DLT 10
Author: K.J. Shetty
Bench: K.J. Shetty, A.M. Ahmadi
PETITIONER:
SYED HASAN RASUL NUMA AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 711 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 165
1991 SCC (1) 401 JT 1990 (4) 463
1990 SCALE (2)1007
ACT:
Delhi Development Act 1947---Section 44-- Master Plan
for Delhi--Modifications made--Change proposed from 'resi-
dential' to 'recreational'--Requisites of the notice and
necessity for publication--Mandatory.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent No. 2, Delhi Development Authority, issued a
public notice dated 5th July 1975 stating that the Central
Government proposes 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 be changed from `residential' to
`recreational' and any person having any objection or sug-
gestion to the proposed modification could send his objec-
tions/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 filing the
objections. The authorities seem to have not considered that
objection. Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition in
the High Court challenging 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 Develop-
ment Act 1957; as it was neither affixed in COnspiCUOUS
place within the locality where the land is located nor was
the same proclaimed by the beat of the drum. According to
the appellants the provisions of section 44 are mandatory.
The High Court having dismissed the writ petition, the
appellants have/filed this appeal, after obtaining special
leave. The same contentions have been reiterated by the
appellants before this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: In matters of interpretation one should not con-
centrate 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 which it is used. [170E-F]
166
Section 44 requires that the notice signed by the Secre-
tary of the Authority shah 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} advertisement in local newspaper. [170B-C]
There are three alternate methods prescribed. The au-
thorities 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 publi-
cation that the Secretary may think fit. That is left to the
Secretary. This appears to be the only reasonable and sensi-
ble view to be taken by the Overall structure of the sec-
tion. [170G-I71A]
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 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; Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr. v.
Raja Ram Jaiswal etc., [1985] 37 SCC 1, referred to.
JUDGMENT: