SH. MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 07-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SH. MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 17(/), (2) and (4), 4(1) and 6. 
Urgency provisions-Invoking of--Preconditions for·-Reld: C 
publication of notification in newspapers and giving notice of substance 
thereof-Mandatory for exercising power of eminent domain under S.4(/)-
There must be a time gap of at least one day between publication of 
notification in Gazette under S.4(1) and declaration under S.6--But when 
urgency provision was invoked publication of notifiction in newspapers D 
and in locality could not be insisted upon for exercising power of eminent 
domain under S.4(/)-Dates of notification and declaration mentioned in 
Gazette conclusive and not actual date of printing-Declaration under S.6 
must be published after publicatfon of notification under S.4(1) though 
signed earlier-Expressions "hereinafter" and "last of the dates of such 
publication" in S.4(1) were for purpose of computation of/imitation under E 
S.6 and not for exercising power under S.17(4)-Equal/y purpose of S. 6(2) 
was to compute period of limitation provided in S.11-A. 
Section 48(/)-Possession of/and-Held: once possession taken land 
stood vested in State free from all encumbrances-Subsequently, power of 
withdrawal under S.48(1) not available-Nor Government has power to F 
withdraw S.6 declaration-General Clauses Act, 1897, S.21. 
Section 6--Declaration-Quashed by Single Judge-Division Bench 
set aside judgment of Single Judge-Held: S.6 declaration stood restored-
Subsequent declaration published under S.6 was only superfluous and of G 
no consequence. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Interpretation-Subsidiary rules of-Mandatory or directory-
Legislative intention-Determination of-Held: Regard must be had to H 
569 
570 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A context, subject-matter and object of statutory provision-Use of word 
"Shall" not always decisive-Statutory remedy for violation of general 
obligation was mandatory. 
Words and Phrases : 
B 
"hereinafter", "last of the dates of such publication"-"Meaning 
of-In the context of S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894. 
The appellant's land was acquired by the respondent, dispensing 
with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
by invoking urgency clause under· Section 17(1) of the Act. The 
C possession of the land was taken under Section 17(4) of the Act. The 
notification and declaration under sections 4(1) and 6(1) were 
published and notice of substance thereof was given in the locality. 
The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging 
the aforesaid acquisition. The declaration published under section 6 
of the Act was quashed by the Single Judge. On appeal, the Division 
D Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Judge. Being aggrieved 
the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the exercise of 
the power under Section 17(4) of the Act by invoking urgency clause 
E under Section 17(1) of the Act was conditional upon the publication 
of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; that Section 4(1) 
contemplated three mandatory steps; that after completion of all the 
three steps enquiry under Section 5-A could be dispensed with and 
declaration under Section 6(1) could be made after publication of 
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; that the respondent, after 
F the judgment of the Single Judge, superseded the declaration and 
published a fresh declaration; and, therefore, the declaration was 
not valid. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that in 
G- j.a(erpreting the provisions of Sections 4(1), 6 and 17 of the Act the 
public purpose behind each of the three Sections should be kept in 
~iew; that the words "hereinafter" and "last of the dates of such 
' publication" used in Sections 4(1) and 6(2) of the Act are for the 
purpose of computation of t!Je limitation prescribed under Section 
11-A of the Act and, therefore, Sections 4( I) and 6(2) of the Act were 
H directory; that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was 
MOHAN SINGH v. I.A.A.I. 
571 
published within a gap of one day and hence the exercise of power A 
under Section 17( 4) and taking of possession under Section 17(1) were 
valid; and that it was not necessary that before exercise of power 
under Section 17(1) the three

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.