Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.
Syed Hasan Rasul Numa and others, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
C.A. No. 1906 of 1976
Decided on 15-11-1990.
Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Section 44 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) – Public Notice – Modification of master plan – Land Acquisition - First appellant claims to be a religious and charitable denomination being a dargah of late Hazarat Syed Hassan Rasul-Numa and second appellant (Spiritual pereeptor) of first appellant - Appellants allege inter alia, that need of converting land use from residential to recreational appears to be a ruse to deprive appellants benefit of their land as there are a number of such recreational parks and open spaces in vicinity as a mere look at the land use Map of Master Plan for Delhi and Delhi Guide Map, 1969 would show - Held, There is abroad basis for view that we have taken from decisions of this Court although on the provisions of other enactment - The S.4(1) of Act, 1894 provides for publication of notification in Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality where the land is situated of which atleast one shall be in regional language - It was said that the fact that owner may have notice of particulars of intended acquisition by any other means does not serve the purpose of S. 4 and does not absolve frorr. obligation to follow method of publication of notification - It was also observed that the notification issued under S. 4(1) without complying with the mandatory direction would be void and the land acquisition proceedings taken pursuant thereto would also be void - This view has been reiterated in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court - In Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985).3 SCC 1 most of earlier decisions have been referred to and view taken in Khub Chand case has been reiterated - Indian Express and the Navbharat Times - This is only one of three means of publication provided under S. 44 and it apparently falls short of the mandatory requirements of the Section. Since the provisions of the S. 44 have not been complied with, notice in question has no validity and the action taken pursuant thereto has also no validity - Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Syed Hasan Rasul Numa and others vs. Union of India and others:
Case Details and Parties * The case was decided by the Supreme Court of India on 15-11-1990, involving the first appellant (Syed Hasan Rasul Numa, a religious denomination claiming ownership of a Dargah) and the second appellant (Sajjada Nashin/Spiritual Perceptor) against the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). (!) (!) (!) * The core dispute centered on a public notice issued by the DDA on 5th July, 1975, proposing to modify the Master Plan for Delhi to change the land use of the Dargah Shaheed Khan area from Residential to Recreational (District Park). (!) (!)
Appellants' Allegations * The appellants alleged that the change in land use was a "ruse" to deprive them of their land, noting the presence of numerous other recreational parks in the vicinity. (!) * They claimed the public notice was not given publicity in the manner prescribed under Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, as it was not affixed in conspicuous places nor proclaimed by beat of drum. (!) * Consequently, they were unaware of the notice until late, filed belated objections on 18th October 1975, and alleged these objections were not properly considered by the authorities. (!) (!)
Procedural History and High Court Ruling * The High Court rejected the writ petition, observing that since the appellants filed objections belatedly, they were not prejudiced even if the publication requirements were not met. (!) (!) * The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment lacked discussion on whether the belated objection was considered. (!) * Respondents argued via affidavit that the belated objection was read out and considered in a meeting held on 25-10-1975, despite not being on the agenda. (!) (!)
Supreme Court Findings on Objection Consideration * The Supreme Court held that there was no record (minutes) indicating the belated objection was actually considered or rejected; it was confined only to listed agenda items. (!) * The Court clarified that while appellants have no right to have belated objections considered, they would be prejudiced if valid objections filed within the prescribed period were ignored. (!)
Statutory Interpretation of Section 44 * Section 44 mandates that a public notice must be widely made known by affixing copies in conspicuous places, publishing by beat of drum, or advertising in a local newspaper. (!) (!) * The Court interpreted the phrase "by any two or more of these means" as mandatory, requiring the use of at least two of the three prescribed methods. (!) * The discretionary power to use "any other means" applies only in addition to the mandatory requirement of using two of the prescribed means. (!) * The Court emphasized that provisions providing notice to persons whose rights are likely to be impaired must always be considered mandatory to effectuate their right to file objections. (!)
Precedent and Final Decision * The Court relied on Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, which established that non-compliance with mandatory publication methods renders the notification void ab initio. (!) (!) * In this case, the notice was published only in newspapers (one of three means), failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of using two or more methods. (!) * Held: The public notice has no validity, and the action taken pursuant to it is also invalid. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:—Delhi Development Authority issued 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 measuring about 3.66 heets (9 acres), known as Dargah Shaheed Khan falling in zone D-5 (D.1.Z. area) bounded by 45.72 meter(1 50 ft.) r/ w Panchkuin Road in the North, 45.72 meter (150 ft.) Ramkrishna Road in the East and residential area in the South-West. It was notified that the land use of this area was proposed to be changed from Residential to Recretional (District Park and Open Spaces)and any person having any objection or suggestion with respect to the proposed modifications could seud his objections or suggestions to the Secretary Delhi Development Authority within thirty days from the date thereof.
2. The first appellant claims to be a religious and charitable denomination being a dargah of late Hazarat Syed Hassan Rasul-Numa and the second appellant is the Sajjada Nashin (Spiritual pereeptor) of the first appellant. The first respondent is the Union of India. The second respondent is the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA").
3. The appellants allege inter alia, that the need of converting the land use from residential to recreational appears to be a ruse to deprive the appellants the benefit of their land as there are a number of such recreational parks and open spaces in the vicinity as a mere look at the land use Map of the Master Plan for Delhi and the Delhi Guide Map, 1969 would show. They have named some of the centrally located parks like Budha Jayanti Park, Ravindra Rangashala and its forests, the Talkatora Garden and yet another across the Panchkuin Road.
4. The case of the appellants is that the said notice was not given publicity in the manner prescribed under S. 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 ("Act"). It was not affixed in conspicuous places within the locality where the land is located, nor was proclaimed by the beat of drum. They were therefore, not aware of the notice and they could not file their objections within the specified period. It is also contended that the provisions of S. 44 are mandatory and the notice about the proposed change of land use ought to be published by two or more means prescribed under the section. However, when they came to know of the notice by other means, they sent their objections though belated. The objection was sent on 18th October, 1975 to the Secretary of DDA. The authorities seem to have not considered that objection. With these and other allegations the appellants challenged the validity of the public notice. They moved the High Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
5. The claim was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court perhaps, by way of preliminary hearing. Upon considering the affidavits filed by the parties, the High Court rejected the writ petition with the following observations on the foregoing contentions:
"It is not disputed that the petitioners did file objections to the impugned notice though late. Therefore, we are of the opinion that even if it be assumed that the provisions of S. 44 of the Act are mandatory and the same have not been complied with in as much as publication of notice is not in two or more prescribed manners, the petitioners have not been prejudiced and there is no cause for interference under our writ jurisdiction."
6. The appellants now appeal to this Court by Special Leave.
7. There are two questions for decision: (1)whether the belated objection filed by the appellants has been considered by the authorities? and (ii) what are the requirements of S. 44; whether they have been complied with in the instant case?
8. The reasoning of the High Court is not readily comprehensible. There is no discussion in the judgment on any one of the questions. We may take up the questions in turn. On the first question, the respondents while resisting the writ petition have filed their respective affidavits in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
