http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SYED HASAN RASUL NUMA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  711            1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 165  1991 SCC  (1) 401        JT 1990 (4)   463  1990 SCALE  (2)1007

ACT:     Delhi  Development Act 1947---Section 44--  Master  Plan for  Delhi--Modifications made--Change proposed from  ’resi- dential’  to  ’recreational’--Requisites of the  notice  and necessity for publication--Mandatory.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent No. 2, Delhi Development Authority, issued  a 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 known as ‘Dargah  Shaheed Khan’.  It  was notified that the land use of  the  area  in question  was proposed to be changed from  ‘residential’  to ‘recreational’  and any person having any objection or  sug- gestion  to the proposed modification could send his  objec- tions/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  filing  the objections. The authorities seem to have not considered that objection. Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging 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 Develop- ment  Act  1957; as it was neither  affixed  in  COnspiCUOUS place within the locality where the land is located nor  was the  same proclaimed by the beat 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/filed 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  con- centrate  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  provi- sion  and every word must be looked at generally and in  the context in which it is used. [170E-F] 166     Section 44 requires that the notice signed by the Secre-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

tary  of  the  Authority shah 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} advertisement in local newspaper. [170B-C]     There  are three alternate methods prescribed.  The  au- thorities  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 publi- cation that the Secretary may think fit. That is left to the Secretary. This appears to be the only reasonable and sensi- ble  view to be taken by the Overall structure of  the  sec- tion. [170G-I71A]     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  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;  Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr.  v. Raja Ram Jaiswal etc., [1985] 37 SCC 1, referred to.

JUDGMENT: