Advocates:
B.V.DESAI, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.B.Kalia, RAJINDER SACHAR, V.B.SAHARYA, V.C.MAHAJAN, V.N.GANPULE

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. (!) (!) (!)