The requirement of serving notice immediately after the publication of the notification is directory and not mandatory, and therefore, even if there is some delay in compliance therewith, that will not render the acquisition bad unless it has caused substantial prejudice to the person concerned.

( 1 ) APPEALLANT No. 1 is the mother and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are her sons. They question the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge rejecting Writ Petition No. 2697/ 87, and also the legality of acquisition of their land admeasuring 2 acres and 19 guntas out of Survey No. 31 / 2a of Belligere Village in Bangalore South Taluk.

( 2 ) IN order to provide house sites to homeless persons belonging to weaker sections of the Society the State Government decided to acquire the said land and Sy. No. 31 / 1b and in exercise of its power under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued a Notification dated 15-6-1982 in that behalf. The notices dated 13-7-1982 calling upon the appellants to show cause why their land should not be acquired were served upon them on 19-6-1984. They filed objections on 18-7-1984. The final notification under Section 3 (4) of the Act was issued on 5-2-1987. Earlier, on 16-12-1986, the Government had dropped from acquisition Sy. No. 31 / 1 B as it found that there was no necessity to acquire that land.

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the acquisition was challenged on three grounds. It was contended that there was undue delay in serving the notices contemplated by Section 3 (2) of the Act, as notices were served on the appellants almost after two years. The second ground of challenge was that the appellants were not given sufficient opportunity to put forward their objections. The third contention was that the Block Development Officer was not heard before taking the decision to issue the Final Notification. The learned single Judge did not find any substance in any of these contentions and therefore, summarily rejected the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE two contentions raised before the learned single Judge that no proper opportunity was given to the appellants to put forward their objections and that the acquisition was bad because the Block Development Officer was not heard before deciding the issue of final notification, were not pressed before us. Three new contentions have been raised in this appeal.

( 5 ) WITH respect to delay of two years in serving personal notices upon the appellants, it was submitted that though the preliminary notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act, was published on 1-7-1982, the individual notices dated 13-7-1982 were served upon the appellants as late as on 19-6-1984. Our attention was invited to the use of the word 'on' in Section 3 (2) and the words 'immediately after' in Rule 4 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Rules, 1973, and it was submitted that the State Government has to serve notice upon the owner or the occupier or the interested persons either simultaneously with the publication of the notification or soon thereafter. It was submitted that both these provisions are mandatory and therefore, as a result of non-compliance with the said requirement, it should be held that the acquisition has become illegal. There can be no dispute that ordinarily the notice under Section 3 (2) of the Act has to be served without any avoidable delay. Whether non-compliance with this requirement would always result in invalidation of the acquisition is the question which we have to consider. We need not refer to the Dictionary meaning of the words 'on' and 'immediately' even though heavy emphasis was placed upon those meanings by the learned Advocate for the appellants, as, in our opinion, there is no dispute as regards the true meaning of these words. The only point to be examined is whether the said requirement can be held as mandatory. It was contended that where a mode of performing duties is laid down by law, it must be performed in that mode and not at all. Even in the absence of the words 'simultaneously' or 'immediately', the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 4 (1) as it stood then, held in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor