LexSYED HASAN RASUL NUMA AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. SYED HASAN RASUL NUMA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. NOVEMBER 15, 1990 A [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY 'AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] ij Delhi Development Act 1947-Section 44-Master Plan for Delhi-Modifications made-Change proposed from 'residential' to 'recreational'-Requisites of the notice and necessity for publication- Mandatory. Respondent No. 2, Delhi Development Authority, issued a public notice dated 5th July 1975 stating that the Central Government pro- poses 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 he changed from 'residen- tial' to 'recreational' and any person having any objection or suggestion to the proposed modification could send his objections/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 r.ting the objections. The authorities seem to have not considered that objection. thereupon the appellants rited a writ petition in the High Court chal- lenging 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 Development Act 1957; as it was neither alTJXed in conspi- cuous place within the locality where the land is located nor was the same proclaimed by the heat 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 rited 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 concentrate 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 provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. [170E-F] 165 c D E F G H A B c 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. Section 44 requires that the notice signed by the Secretary of the Authority shall 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) ad- vertisement in local newspaper. [ 170B-C I There are three alternate methods prescribed. The authorities 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 publication that the Secretary may think fit. That is left to the Sec- retary. This appears to be the only reasonable and sensible view to be taken by the Overall structure of the section. [170G-171A) 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 D 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; E Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jais- wa/ etc., (1985) 37 sec 1, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1906 of 1976. F From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.1976 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 59 of 1976. Rajinder Sachhar, B.V. Desai and D.B. Kalia for the Appellants. V.C. Mahajan, V.B. Saharya, V.N. Ganpule and C.V. Subba G Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Delhi Development Authority issued public notice dated 5th July 1975 stating that the Central H Government proposes to make modifications to the Master Plan for • HASAN RASUL v. U.0.1. [SHETfY, J.l 167 Delhi with respect to an area measuring about 3.66 hects (9 acres), known as Dargah Shaheed Khan, falling in zone D-5 (D.l.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.