ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short the Act), was published in the State Gazette on 25-10-1988, in the local newspapers Dainik Veer (Hindi) and in Indian Express on 16-11-1988. The substance of that notification was got published in the locality on 27-4-1989. Similarly, declaration under Section 6 was published in the State Gazette on 1-8-1989, in Veer Arjun (Hindi) on 10-8-1989 and in Patriot (English) on 8-8-1989. In the chart showing the dates of publication of notification found in the counter-affidavit, no mention of the date of publication of the substance of Section 6 notification in the locality is made. Although notice was issued under Section 5-A, the respondent had not, admittedly, objected to the acquisition. Consequently, declaration came to be made. Pursuant to the notice served under Sections 9 and 10 the respondents had participated in the enquiry held by the District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, and the Award was made on 17-7-1991. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that since there was a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation, a reference under Section 30 was made to the District Court, Gurgaon, and the compensation was deposited to its credit. The writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed on 4-5-1992 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that publication of the substance of the notification under Sections 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.

4. It is contended for the State that the High Court was not right in holding that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was not published in the locality. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit, sworn to by Mr R.S. Malik, he has stated the details of the dates on which the respective publications came to be made. In Column 4 thereof, he has specifically stated that Munadi (publication by beating the drum) was made in the locality on 27-4-1989. But no statement as regards the publication of Munadi of Section 6 was made. It is contended by Mr Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent, that in view of the language in which Section 6(2) was couched being in pari materia with the language in which Section 4(1) was couched, the publication of the substance of Section 6 declaration in the locality is also mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the entire acquisition illegal. It is also contended by him that though publication in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) was made on 25-10-1988 and in the newspapers on 16-11-1988, the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality was made after a lapse of six months, i.e., on 28-7-1989 and that, therefore, notification under Section 4(1) is also invalid. The contention is that the requirement of the publication in the locality of the notification under Section 4(1) has since been held to be mandatory by a decision of this Court, the ratio of that decision would be applicable to the publication of the substance of the declaration under Section 6 in the locality which is equally mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders it invalid. We find no force in any of the contentions of the respondent. It is true that the publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) in the locality is mandatory. The object of publication of notification under Section 4(1) is that the owner of the land sought to be acquired has to exercise his valuable right to file his objections under Section 5-A. The publication of the substance of such notification in the locality must, therefore, be mandatory.

5. The use of the word shall is ordinarily mandatory but it is sometimes not so interpreted if the scope of the enactment, on consequences to flow fro