STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus RAGHUBIR DAYAL

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 10-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. · 
v. 
RAGHUBIR DAYAL 
NOVEMBER 10, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANON. VENKATACHALA,JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4 (1) -Word 'shall' used in 
Section 4 (J) -Mandatory-Publication of substance of notification of 
Section 4 (J) in the locality ~s mandatory-Time gap of more than six 
months between date of notification u/s 4 (1) in State Gazette and date of 
C 
publication of notification in the locality-Delay by itself will not render 
notification u/s 4 (J) invalid 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 6-Non publication of substanc..: 
of declaration u/s 6 (1) in locality-Whether renders declaration invalid-
Held, N~Word 'shall' used in Sub-Section (2) of Section 6-Directory 
D 
and not mandatory. 
E 
F 
G 
WORDS AND PHRASES-Word 'shall' Whether mandatory or 
directory. 
Notification u/s 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published in the State Gazette on Oct., 25, 1988, in the local 
newspapers on November 16, 1988. The substance of that notification 
was got published in the locality on April 27, 1989. Similarly, 
declaration u/s 6 was published in the State Gazette on Aug., 1, 1989. 
No mention of the date of publication of the substance of Section 6 
notification in the locality was made. Although notice was issued u/s S-
A, the respondent had not objected to the acquisition. Consequently, 
declaration came to be made. Pursuant to the notice served u/s 9 and 
10, the respondents participated in the enquiry and the Award was 
made. The writ petition flied by the respondent was allowed by the 
High Court holding that publication of the substance of the notification 
u/s 4 (1) and 6 in the locality was mandatory and as they were not 
published in the locality, the acquisition was invalid for infraction of 
the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 (1) and 6 (2) of the Act. This 
appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court. 
The State has contended that the High Court was not right in 
holding that the substance of the notification u/s 4 (1) was not published 
H 
in the locality. 
448 
STATE OF HARYANA v. RAGHUBIR DAY AL 
449 
It has been state that Munadi was made in the locality. It has been A 
contended by the respondent that in view of the language with which 
Section 6 (2) was couched Leing in parl materia with the language of 
Section 4 (1), the publication of the substance cf Section 6 declaration 
in the locality is also mandato_ry and non-compliance thereof renders 
the entire acquisition illegal. It is also contended that the publication of B 
tl1e substance of the notification in the locality was made after a lapse 
of six months of the publication of the notification in the State Gazette 
and that, therefore, notification u/s· 4 (1) is also invalid. It is further 
submitted that the requirement of the publication in the locality of the 
notification u/s 4 (1) has since been held to be mandatory, the 
publication of the substance of the declaration u/s 6 in the locality is C 
equally mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders it invalid. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The usl' of the word 'shall' is ordinarily mandatory but 
it is sometimes not so interpreted if the scope of the enactment, on D . 
consequences to Oow from such construction would not so deman~. 
Normally, the word 'shall' prima-facie ought to be considered 
mandatory but it is the function of the Court to ascertain the real 
intention of the Legislature by a careful examination of the whole scope 
of the statute, the purpose it seeks to serve and the consequences that 
would Oow from the construction to be placed thereon. The word E 
'shall', therefore, ought to be construed not according to the language 
with which it is clothed but in the context in which it is used and the 
purpose it seeks to serve. The meaning has to be ascribed to the word 
'shall' as mandatory or as directory, accordingly. (452-8-C) 
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd v. Municipal Board, AIR (1965) SC 895, F 
relied on. 
1.2. The word 'shall' used in Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 should be construed to be mandatory because the 
requirement of Section 4 (1) of the publication of the notification in the G 
Gazette followed by their publication in the newspapers perhaps in 
some cases may not meet the needed purpose of the notice to the owner 
or person claiming interest in the land proposed to be acquired. 
Therefore, publication of the substance of the notification of Section 4 
(1) in t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.