Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"56. Applying the aforesaid tests and the principles it has now to be seen whether the Bihar Amendment Act (Act XX of 1961) and the Central Amendment (Act 68 of 1984) are repugnant to each other inasmuch as the two enactments are so irreconcilable that they cannot stand together or whether they operate in the same field and there is possibility of both the statutes coming into collision with each other. The extent of the Bihar Amendment and the subsequent Central Amendment has been indicated above. A bare comparative look of the provisions of Sub-Section (1), as it originally stood prior to the Bihar Amendment, as it stands after the Bihar Amendment and as it stands after the Central Amendment would make it clear that the Bihar Amendment had effected a basic change in the mode of publication of the notification, providing for such publication at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Subdivisional Officer and so on, in place of publication in the 'official gazette' as provided in the Central Act. What the Central Amendment has done is only to provide an additional mode of publication in the two daily newspapers of the locality, apart from publication in the official gazette. Now. Sub-Section (1) as substituted by the Bihar Amendment, will be read as subject to the Central amendment providing for an additional mode of publication, without creating any 'repugnancy' i.e. inconsistency or conflict between the two. In other words, the mode of publication of the notification at the office of the Collector and so on will be deemed to be a substitute for publication in the official gazette as understood in the ordinary sense to mean State gazette. Thus, the Central Amendment of 1984 providing for additional mode of publication in the two daily newspapers can stand together with the publication of the notification at the office of the Collector. It would, thus, appear that notwithstanding the Central Amendment of 1984, the Bihar Amendment continues to hold the field and it cannot be said that the two provisions providing the mode of publication of the notification are mutually inconsistent to the extent that they are irreconcilable to each other and they cannot stand together. In my considered opinion, therefore, there is no repugnancy between the Central Amendment of Sub-Section (1 )of Section 4 of the Bihar Amendment of 1961. It would, accordingly, follow that if the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been published by the Collector in the document, which is known as District gazette, it cannot be said to be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, notwithstanding the amendment of 1984."

19. At this stage, it needs to be recalled that long before the introduction of publication in newspaper as the third mode of announcement the Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1973 SC 552 had held that the obligation to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality was mandatory and the failure to do so would vitiate the whole acquisition. It was further held that the public notice could not be avoided even in a case where the applicability of Section 5 A was dispensed with in terms of Section 17(4) at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act. It is, thus, evident that the Union Legislature while enacting Act 68 of 1984 was fully aware of the legal position regarding the mandatory nature of Section 4( 1) demanding compliance with both the modes of proclamation regardless of any prejudice being caused to the person concerned. That was the legal position when the Parliament thought it fit to add a third mode of announcement by requiring the notification to be published in two newspapers and made the amendment in a manner so as to insert the additional mode right between the two modes prescribed from before and each of which was held to fee mandatory by the apex Court.