http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1989

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1989 AIR  682            1989 SCR  (1)  92  1989 SCC  (1) 591        JT 1989 (1)    58  1989 SCALE  (1)50

ACT:     Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 4, 6 and 17--’After the  date  of the publication of  the  notification’--Effect of--Introduction of by the Land Acquisition (Amendment)  Act 1984---Whether section 6 declaration can be issued  simulta- neously  with  section  4 notification--To be  issued  on  a subsequent date.     Statutory  Interpretation: Job of  the  Court--Interpret the  intention  of legislature by  the  words  used--Explore intentions at time the law was made.

HEADNOTE:     The  U.P. Legislature enacted in 1973 the Uttar  Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act. On or about 11th Septem- ber, 1974 Lucknow had been declared to be a development area by a notification. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 was made effective from 24th September, 1984.  Notifications under section 4(1) and a declaration under section 6 of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 8th December, 1984 in  respect of the Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase II  on the  28th  December,  1984 in respect  of  Dalibagh  Housing Scheme,  and  on the 21st February, 1980 in respect  of  the Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase III.     The owners of the land which were sought to be  acquired by  the aforesaid notifications filed writ petitions in  the High  Court  and obtained stay orders in respect  of  taking over  of possession of the diverse lands on the ground  that the  notifications under section 4(1) and section 6  of  the Act have been passed simultaneously.     A Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  was issued on the 6th May, 1985 declaring that the lands of  the respondents were needed for a public purpose viz., construc- tion  of  market  yard for the Krishi  Utpadan  Samiti.  The Notification  further  contained a  declaration  that  since there  was  urgency for the acquisition  the  provisions  of action  17(IA) and section 17(4) of the Act shall apply  and the  provisions of section 5A shall not apply. On  the  same day  i.e. on 6th May, 1985 another Notification  was  issued under section 6 making a declaration 93 that  the  laud was required for the  public  purpose  viz.,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

construction  of a market yard. That Notification also  con- tained  direction as contemplated in section 17(1) and  (IA) authorising  the  Collector to take possession of  the  land even before the declaration of the award under section 11.     Aggrieved  by the acquisition the respondents filed  two writ  petitions and contended before the Division  Bench  of the High Court that in view of the amendments introduced  by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the  declaration as contemplated under section 6 could not have been made  on the  same day on which the Notification under section 4  was published,  and that after the amendment,  the  Notification under  section  6 of the Act can only be  issued  after  the Notification under section 4 was published.     The High Court was of the view that prior to the  amend- ment, a declaration under section 6 could be made simultane- ously with the publication of the Notification under section 4(1),  but  after the amendment, a declaration can  only  be made  "after  the date of publication  of  the  Notification under  section 4(1)" and came to the conclusion  that  there must be difference of dates between the date of the publica- tion of the Notification under section 4 and section 6.  The High  Court held that the notification under section  6  was therefore  rendered illegal and as such the appellants  were not entitled to take possession of the respondents’ land. It accordingly  quashed  the Notification dated 6th  May,  1985 issued under section 6 of the Act.     In the appeals to this Court it was contended on  behalf of the State-appellants that the amendment of section  17(4) by  the  words  "after the date of the  publication  of  the notification" was necessitated because of the change of  the expressions  in sub-section (1) of section 4 which  for  the first time gave a definition of the date of the  publication of  the  notification. Similarly, in section 6(2)  the  last date  of the publication as enjoined in section 6  had  been defined as the date of publication. For this purpose, it was necessary to introduce the expression "after the date of the publication  of the notification" under sub-section  (4)  of section 17.     On the question whether the declaration under section  6 of  the  Act  would be issued simultaneously  along  with  a notification  under  section  4 of the Act in  view  of  the amendment made by section 17(4) of the Act; Dismissing the Appeals, 94     HELD: l(a) The words "after the date of the  publication of  the notification" in sub-section (4) of section 17  read simpliciter clearly indicate that declaration under  section 6  had to be made after the publication of the  notification meaning thereby subsequent to the date of the publication of the notification. There is nothing in the the scheme of  the Act which militates against such a construction. [106F-G]     l.(b) No alteration in meaning by alteration of language can  result unless the requirement of the  English  language demand  it or those requirements permit it and the sense  of the section demands it. [107A-B]     2.  At  times  where emergency  provisions  are  invoked emergent action may be taken but in such a situation in view of the state of law that was before it, the legislature  has made  a  conscious  change which cannot  be  explained  away merely  because this is as a consequence of the  changes  in sections 4 and 6 of the Act. [106G-H]     Smt.  Somawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1963] 2  SCR 775: Babu Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR  (1979) SC 1713; Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, [1985] 3 SCC 1 referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

   3. The basic principle of construction of every  statute is  to find out what is clearly stated and not to  speculate upon  latent imponderables. The scheme of the Act also  must be looked into. In interpreting the statutes it is safer  to rely  on the obvious meaning rather than to investigate  the imponderables. [106D]     Shri  Balaganesan  Metals v. M.R.  Shanmugham  Chetty  & Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 707; Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh &  Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 319 referred to.     4. It is the job of the Court to interpret the intention of  the legislature by the words used. The fairest  and  the most  rational method to interpret the will of the  legisla- ture is by exploring intentions at the time when the law was made  by signs, the most natural and probable.  These  signs are  either the words, the context, the subject matter,  the effects and the consequence or the spirit and reason of  the law. The words have to be understood in their usual and most known signification. [107C-D]     Lord Howard de Walden v. IRC, [1948] 2 AER 825; Hopes v. Hopes. [1948] 2 AIR 920; referred to. 95     Blackstone  Commentaries in the Laws of England, Vol.  1 p. 59 referred to.     5.  It will be open to the appellants to issue  a  fresh declaration  under  section  6, if so  advised,  within  the period  contemplated in the proviso to section 6(1)  of  the Act read with its first Explanation. [107F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1843  of 1986 etc.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated 2.4.  1986  of  the Allahabad  High  Court  in C.M.A. No.  3909(W)  of  1986  in W.P.No. 2042 of 1986.     Anil Dev Singh, S.N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit,  Umesh Chandra, Krishan Chandra and C.P. Lal for the Appellants.     R.K.  Jain,  Pradeep K. Aggarwal,  Rakesh  Khanna,  R.P. Singh and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI, J: These appeals by special  leave arise  from  the decision of the High  Court  of  Allahabad. These involve common question. It would, however, be  appro- priate  to deal with the facts of Civil Appeal No.  1845  of 1986 which is an appeal from the decision of the High  Court of  Allahabad  in Writ Petition Nos. 8145 and 8146  of  1985 decided on 20th November, 1985. The other two Civil  Appeals deal  with identical questions. In order to  appreciate  the controversy  involved  it  would be necessary  to  refer  to certain facts of the case.     Uttar  Pradesh  Urban Planning and Development  Act  was enacted by the U.P. Legislature in 1973. On or about 11th of September, 1974, Lucknow had been declared to be a  develop- ment area by a notification. On or about 24th of  September, 1984 Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was made  effec- tive  subsequent to the 24th of September, 1984. On the  8th of  December, 1984 a Notification under section 4(1)  and  a declaration  under  Section 6 of the Land  Acquisition  Act, 1894  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) in  respect  of Ujariyaon  Housing  Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase-II  was  pub- lished.  On the 28th December, 1984 Notification under  Sec- tion  4(1)  and declaration under Section 6 of  the  Act  in respect of L.D.A. Office/Nagar Maha Palika 96

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

Office and other offices on B.N. Road was published. On  the 2nd January, 1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and decla- ration  under  Section 6 of the Act in respect  of  Dalibagh Housing  Scheme was published. On the 4th of February,  1985 Notification  under Section 4(1) and declaration under  Sec- tion 6 of the Act in respect of Extension of Kursi Road upto Mahanagar through Vishnupun was published. On 21st February, 1985  Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration  under Section 6 of the Act in respect of Ujariyaon Housing  Scheme (Somti  Nagar), Phase-III was published. In respect  of  the several  of  these  matters on diverse  dates  several  writ petitions had been moved and orders were passed by the  High Court  staying  taking  over of possession  of  the  diverse lands,  if  not already taken over, in,  case  notifications under section 4(1) and section 6 of the Act have been passed simultaneously.     As  mentioned  hereinbefore, we are concerned  in  these appeals  with  the judgment and order of the High  Court  of Allahabad  dated 20th November, 1985 in Writ Petitions  Nos. 8145 and 8146 of 1985. The petitioners before the High Court and  the respondents herein are owners of plots situated  in village Sonera, Tehsil Kichha, District Nainital. Their land was being acquired under the provisions of the Act. A  Noti- fication  under the said Act was issued on 6th of May,  1985 declaring  that the land in question including the  respond- ents’  land  was needed for a public  purpose,  namely,  for construction  of  market yard for the Krishi  Utpadan  Mandi Samiti, Kichha. The Notification further contained a  decla- ration that since there was urgency for the acquisition, the provisions  of Section 17(1-A) and Section 17(4) of the  Act shall  apply  and the provisions of Section 5-A of  the  Act shall not apply. On the same day, that is to say, on 6th  of May,  1985  another  Notification was issued  by  the  State Government  under  Section 6 of the Act  making  declaration that the land in dispute was required for a public  purpose, namely,  for the construction of market yard for the  Krishi Utpadan  Mandi Samiti, Kichha. That Notification  also  con- tained a direction as contemplated by Section 17(1) and  (l- A)  of the Act authorising the Collector to take  possession of  the land even before the declaration of the award  under Section 11 of the Act. Both the aforesaid notifications were published  on the same day, namely, the 22nd of  May,  1985. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed two writ  petitions challenging the validity of the said notifications.     It  was  urged on behalf of the respondents  before  the Division  Bench of the High Court of Allahabad that in  view of the amendments introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amend- ment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 97 68 of 1984) the declaration as contemplated under Section  6 of the Act could not have been made on the same day on which the  notification under section 4 of the Act was  published, it submitted that now after the amendment, the  Notification under  Section  6 of the Act can only be  issued  after  the Notification  under Section 4 was published. The High  Court found  substance  in the said submission. According  to  the High Court, prior to the amendment of the Act by the  Amend- ing Act No. 58 of 1984 it was permissible for the Government to issue Notification under Section 4 of the Act and to make declaration  as  contemplated  under Section 6  of  the  Act simultaneously  and  it was further permissible  to  publish both  the notification simultaneously as held by this  Court in  Srnt Sornawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1963] 2  SCR 775.  The High Court noted that normally after the issue  of the  Notification under Section 4 of the Act objections  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

invited as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act and  after holding enquiry the Collector submits report to the  Govern- ment and on consideration of the same, the Government  makes declaration as contemplated by Section 6 of the Act. Posses- sion  of the land is taken after the award is declared.  But in case of urgency where the Government considers it  neces- sary to acquire the land immediately and to make it possible even  prior to the making of the award, it has the power  to dispense  with  the provisions of Section 5-A  of  the  Act. Section  17 of the Act confers special power on the  Govern- ment  and  the Collector in case of urgency for immediate taking  of  possession after the issue of  the  Notification under  Section 6 of the Act and without complying  with  the provisions  of Section 5-A of the Act. Section 17(4) of  the Act  prior to this amendment conferred power on the  Govern- ment to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall  not apply, if in its opinion the provisions of sub-sections (1), (l-A) and (2) of Section 17 were applicable. The High  Court was of the view that on the issue of such a direction by the Government,  a declaration could be made as contemplated  by Section  6  of the Act in respect of the land  at  any  time after the publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. According to the High Court, prior to the amendment of  Section  17(4)  of the Amending Act No. 68  of  1984,  a declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act could be made at any time along with the publication of the  Noti- fication under Section 4 of the Act but after the  amendment of Section 17(4), a declaration as contemplated by Section 6 of  the Act can be made only "after the date of  publication of  the  notification under Section 4(1)". In view  of  this amendment Notification under Section 6 of the Act had to  be made  after the Notification under Section 4(1) of  the  Act was published. The expression "after the date of publication of the notification" as added to sub-section (4) of  Section 17 of the Act contemp- 98 lated  the issue of Notification under Section 6 of the  Act only after the publication of Notification and under Section 4(1)  of the Act. The High Court was of the view that  prior to  the amendment, a declaration under Section 6 of the  Act could  be  made simultaneously with the publication  of  the Notification  under Section 4(1) of the Act. But  after  the amendment, a declaration can only be made "after the date of publication  of the Notification" under Section 4. The  High Court  came to the conclusion that there must be  difference of dates between the date of the publication of the  Notifi- cation  under Section 4 and Section 6. After the  Amendment, according  to the High Court, both the notifications  cannot be published on the same date. The publication of the  Noti- fication under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on the same  date would be contrary to Section 17(4) of the Act as amended  by Act  68  of  1984 and would render  the  Notification  under Section 6 of the Act invalid. The High Court found that  the Notification under Section 6 of the Act containing  declara- tion  that the land in dispute was needed for a public  pur- pose was issued on 6th of May, 1985 and published simultane- ously along with the Notification under Section 4(1) of  the Act on the same date, namely, May 22, 1985. This,  according to  the High Court, was in clear violation of Section  17(4) of  the Act. In this view, the impugned  Notification  under Section  6 was rendered illegal and as such  the  appellants were  not  entitled to take possession of  the  respondents’ land.  The High Court accordingly quashed  the  notification dated 6th May, 1985 issued under Section 6 of the Act.     The  short  question with which these appeals  are  con-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

cerned  is, whether the declaration under Section 6  of  the Act could be issued simultaneously along with the  notifica- tion  under  Section 4 of the Act in view of  the  amendment made to Section 17(4) of the Act. To decide the question  it is  necessary  to  appreciate the scheme of  the  Act  after amendment.  Section  4 of the Act envisages  publication  of preliminary notification where it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is  likely to  be  needed for any public purpose or for a  company,  it enjoins  in  such a situation that a  notification  to  that effect  shall  be published in the Official Gazette  and  in certain  other  daily newspapers and the  substance  of  the notification  is to be given at a convenient places in  that locality.  It is not necessary to dilate on  the  subsequent procedure as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of  the Act enjoins payment of damages on  the  acquisition. Section  5-A  of the Act provides for hearing  of  objection which  has been notified under Section 4 of the Act and  the procedure  thereto. Thereafter comes declaration under  Sec- tion 6 of the Act. The sections provide that after consider- ation of the report, if any, made 99 under  Section  5A that a particular land is  needed  for  a public purpose or for a company, a declaration in the manner enjoined  in section 6 of the Act shah be made.  The  provi- sions  of  procedure  to be followed  on  declaration  under Section  6  of the Act, are not directly  relevant  for  the purpose  of these appeals. Section 17 of the Act with  which we are directly concerned here provides with cases of urgen- cy where the Government can dispense with some of the provi- sions of the Act especially regarding intiviting  objections and hearing of these.     As mentioned hereinbefore, several objections  challeng- ing  the acquisition had been admitted by the High Court  of Allahabad and some of these are the subject matter of appeal in  this Court and stay orders preventing the taking of  the possession of the land pursuant to the acquisition had  been granted  on  the basis that in view of  the  Division  Bench judgment  under  appeal herein of the Allahabad  High  Court there  could  not  be any  simultaneous  notification  under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act even in a case where by virtue by invocation of the emergency provi- sions Section 5-A of the Act need not be complied with.  The Government  contends that even after the amendment  of  sub- section (4) of Section 17 of the Act it is possible to  have such simultaneous notification under Section 4 and  declara- tion under Section 6 of the Act in cases where the emergency provisions had been invoked. According to the State, a large number  of  cases have been filed and stay  orders  obtained from  the Court particulars whereof have been  mentioned  in the grounds of appeal herein. It was submitted on behalf  of the appellant that the substitution of the words "after  the publication  of  the notification" by the words  "after  the date  of the notification" in sub-section (4) of Section  17 of the Act has not made any change in law and as such simul- taneous publication on one and the same date of the  notifi- cation  under Section 4 and declaration under section  6  of the  Act in case of urgency where Section 5-A had been  made inapplicable  prior to the amendment by Amending Act No.  68 of  1984 have been upheld in a number of decisions  of  this Court  and this position, it was submitted, continues to  be valid  even after the amendment by Amendment Act No.  68  of 1984.  In order to appreciate the contentions urged in  sup- port of this submission, it is necessary to note the signif- icant changes that have been made by the Amending Act No. 68

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

of  1984  in Sections 4 and 6 as well as Section 17  of  the Act. The relevant sub-sections of sections prior and  subse- quent to the amendment are as follows: "Unamended Section 4(1) 100        Whenever  it  appears to the  appropriate  government that  land  in  any locality is needed or is  likely  to  be needed for any public purpose a notification to that  effect shall be published in the official gazette and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notifica- tion to be given at convenient places in the said locality." "Amended Section 4(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate government that  land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for  any public  purpose  or  for a company a  notification  to  that effect shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating that locality of which at least one  shall  be in the regional language  and  the  Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notifica- tion  to be given at convenient places in the said  locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving  of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as to  the date of publication of the notification." "Unamended Section 6(2) Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette and  shall state the district or other territorial  division in  which the land is situate, the purpose for which  it  is needed,  its approximate area, and, where a plan shall  have been  made  of the land, the place where such  plan  may  be inspected." "Amended Section 6(2) Every declaration shall be published in the official Gazette and  in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality  in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be  in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause  public notice  of the substance of such declaration to be given  at convenient  places  in the said locality (the  last  of  the dates of such publication and giving of such public  notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of  the  declaration) and such declaration shall  state  the district or other territorial division in which the land  is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, 101               where a plan shall have been made of the land,               the place where such plan may be inspected."               "Unamended Section 17(4)               In  the  case  of any land to  which,  in  the               opinion  of  the appropriate  Government,  the               provisions  of sub-section (1) of  sub-section               (2) are applicable the appropriate  Government               may direct that the provisions of Section  5-A               shall not apply, and, if it does so direct,  a               declaration  may  be made under Section  6  in               respect  of  the land at any  time  after  the               publication of the notification under  Section               4(1)."               "Amended Section 17(4)               In the case of any land to which in the  opin-               ion  of the appropriate Government the  provi-               sions  of sub-section (1) or  sub-section  (2)               are applicable, the appropriate Government may               direct  that  the provisions  of  Section  5-A               shall  not apply and, if it does so direct,  a               declaration  may  be made under Section  6  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

             respect  of  the land at any time  (after  the               date  of the publication of  the  notification               under section 4, sub-section (1)."     It was contended that the amendment of Section 17(4)  by he words "after the date of the publication of the notifica- tion" was necessitated because of the change of the  expres- sion in sub-section 1 of the Section (4) which for the first time gave a definition of the date of the publication of the notification.  Similarly, in Section 6(2), the last date  of the  publication  as enjoined in Section 6 and  as  set  out hereinbefore  had been defined as the date  of  publication. For this purpose, it was necessary to introduce the  expres- sion "after the date of the publication of the notification" under  sub-section  (4)  of Section 17 of the  Act.  It  was submitted  that  the  proceedings for  acquisition  of  land commenced  from  the publication of the  notification  under Section 4(1) of the Act and under the provisions of  Section 5-A  of the Act any person interested in any land which  has been  notified under Section 4(1) as being needed or  likely to  be  needed  for a public purpose or for  a  company  may within  30  days  from the date of the  publication  of  the notification,  object to the acquisition of the land  or  of any  land in the locality, as the case may be.  In  ordinary cases after hearing objections, the State Government makes a decision regarding the acquisition of land and in case it is decided by the State Government that the land is 102 needed for a public purpose or for a company, a  declaration to  that effect is enjoined to be made by the State  Govern- ment  under Section 6(1) of the Act. Since in normal  course declaration  is made after objections under Section  5-A  of the  Act have been considered and disposed of, the  date  of the  declaration  under Section 6(2) of the Act  has  to  be subsequent  to  the date of the notification  under  Section 4(1)  of the Act, but in a case where objections under  Sec- tion 5-A have been dispensed with, simultaneous  publication on  one and the same date of the notification under  Section 4(1)  and the declaration under Section 6(1) and (2) of  the Act can be made simultaneously, was the position before  the amendment of the Act before 1984. That this was the position in  law, cannot be disputed in view of the decision of  this Court  in  Smt. Somavanti & Ors. v. The State  of  Punjab  & Ors.,  (supra) which conclusively held that in a case  where Section 5-A was out of the way, publication of both  notifi- cations  under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6  in the  same issue of the Gazette is not irregular. It  may  be mentioned  that in that case it was found that in the  offi- cial  Gazette  of 25th August, 1961 a notification  as  pub- lished  under Section 4 of the Act to the effect  that  land belonging to the petitioners was likely to be needed by  the Government at public expenses for a public purpose, .namely, for setting up of a factory for manufacturing various ranges of  refrigeration compressors and ancillary equipments.  The Government had directed that action under Section 17 of  the Act  shall be taken because there was urgency and  that  the provisions  of Section 5-A shall not apply to  the  acquisi- tion.  In the same gazette, another notification under  Sec- tion 6 of the Act dated August 19, 1961 was published to the effect  that the Governor of Punjab was satisfied  that  the land  was required by the Government at public expenses  for public  purpose.  The notification  provided  for  immediate taking of the possession of the land under Section  17(2)(c) of the Act. A Bench of, five Judges of this Court inter alia held that simultaneous publication of the notification under Section  4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act  in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

situation where section 5-A was out of the way was not bad.     This  view was reiterated by this Court in Babu Singh  & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1713. A Bench  of two  Judges in that decision held that there is  nothing  in the provisions of the Act which would come in the way of the Government issuing a notification under Section 6 immediate- ly after notification under Section 4 if on applying urgency clause, enquiry under Section 5-A is dispensed with and both could be issued on the same day. The  question is, has the position changed with the  changes noted 103 in  law hereinbefore. Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned  counsel  who argued this case before us had submitted that the use of the words "the date of the publication" under Section 4 as  well as Section 6 of the Act has the sequel to the amendment made in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It was submitted that  after enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with by  application of  emergency provisions, there could not be any  reason  or justification’  for not allowing publication  simultaneously of  the notification under Section 4 and  declaration  under Section 6 of the Act especially so where in urgent cases  it was  vitally necessary for the Government to do so.  It  was submitted that where under sub-section (2) of Section 17  of the  Act  there is urgency for acquisition owing  to  sudden change  in various circumstances, immediate  possession  may have  to be taken for the purpose of maintaining either  the structure  or system or irrigation or water  drainage,  road communication or electricity, and any delay in taking  imme- diate  possession  by not publishing the  declaration  under Section 6 and notification under Section 4 simultaneously on one  and the same date may result in great  catastrophe.  It was further submitted that the expression "after the date of the  publication  of notification" have no  bearing  on  the exercise  of  power or  urgency  necessitating  simultaneous publication  of  the  notification under  Section  4(1)  and declaration  under  Section  6 of the Act.  It  was  further submitted  on behalf of the appellant that  the  acquisition proceedings  commence with the publication of the  notifica- tion  under  Section 4 of the Act,  besides  publication  of notice  of  substance  of such  notification  at  convenient places  in the locality. This was required to be done  under Section  4(1) of the Act prior to the amendment  of  Section 4(1) of the Act by Act No. 68 of 1984. As a result of amend- ment  of Section 4(1) by Act No. 68 of 1984, it is now  laid down  that notification under Section 4(1) of the  Act  that land in a locality is needed or likely to be needed for  any public  purpose or for a company shall be published  in  the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating  in that  locality of which at least one shall be in a  regional language and the Collector shall also cause public notice of the substance of such notification, the last of the dates of such  publication being hereinafter referred to as the  date of  the  publication of the notification.  Similarly,  under Section  6(2)  of  the Act it has been provided  that  as  a result of amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984 every  declaration shall  be  published in the official gazette and  two  daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land  is situated  of  which at least one shall be  in  the  regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance  of  such declaration to be  given  at  convenient places  in the locality in which the land is  situated,  the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public. 104

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

notice,  being  hereinafter referred to as the date  of  the publication of the declaration. Under both Sections 6(2) and 4(1)  the date of publication having been specified,  amend- ment  had to be made under subsection (4) of Section  17  of the  Act  and it was laid down that in case of  urgency  the appropriate  Government  may direct that the  provisions  of Section  5-A  of the Act shall not apply and it  so  directs that  the declaration be made under Section 6 in respect  of the  land at any time after the date of the  publication  of the notification under sub-sections (1) of Section 4 and the addition  of the words "the date of" have not brought  about any change in law at all. It was a verbal change necessitat- ed  by  the amendment in Section 4 and Section  6  as  noted above  and the position in law continues as it  was  before. Mr.  Anil Dev Singh also supported Mr. Kacker  appearing  in other appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 1843 and 1844 of 1986.     On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Jain canvassed the view that if  the  words have changed adherence must be given  to  the change  of the expression used. Our attention was  drawn  by Mr. Jain to a decision of this Court in Collector  (District Magistrate)  Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, [1985]  3 SCC  1. There, the facts were, however, slightly  different. In  that  case the Hindi Sahitaya Sammelan, Prayag  had  ob- tained  a large open land from Municipal Board in  1953  for constructing  Hindi  Sangrahalaya, but the  land  was  lying vacant  and  unutilised. In the vicinity of  the  Sammelan’s campus  was  the land of the respondent who with a  view  to construct  a  sound-proof  air-conditioned  cinema   theatre thereon  sought certificate of approval from the D.M.  under Rule 3 read with Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Cinematograph  Rules, 1951.  The Sammelan vehemently opposed to that  proposal  on the  ground that a cinema theatre in the vicinity  would  be destructive  of  culture  and academic  environment  of  the institute.  Overruling the objection, the D.M.  granted  the certificate to the respondent. Thereupon, the Sammelan  made an application to the Government for acquiring the  respond- ent’s  land as, according to it, the land was needed  by  it for  the purpose of extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya,  though later  it  shifted  its stand to need  for  construction  of Natyashala  and Rangmanch and ultimately maintained that  it would devise schemes for proper utilisation as and when  the land  is made available. Although the Collector on whom  the statute confers power to initiate proceeding for acquisition himself  was satisfied that Sammelan sought acquisition  not because  it  required the land but it wanted to stop  or  do away with the cinema theatre, but ultimately a  notification was  issued under Section 4(1) of the Act stating  that  the land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for  extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of the 105 Sammelan.  The notification was issued in the  official  ga- zette  and the substance of the notification was  also  pub- lished  in  the locality. But since the plot number  of  the land was wrongly mentioned in the notification, a  corrigen- dum  was  published cancelling and superseding  the  earlier notification  and correcting the plot number. The notice  of the  substance of the second notification was not  published in  the locality. As the earlier notification had  no  rele- vance to the plot of the respondent, there was admittedly no notice of the substance of the notifications in the  locali- ty. Questions for determination were:                  1. Whether the requirement under the second               part  of Section 4(1) regarding giving  public               notice of the substance of the notification in               the locality is mandatory and its  non-compli-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

             ance is fatal to the acquisition proceedings:                  2.  Whether the acquisition proceeding  was               vitiated by legal mala fides;                  3. Whether the notification under Section 4               was  invalid  as it had  been  issued  without               first complying with Rule 4 of the Land Acqui-               sition (Companies) Rules, 1963?     This  Court  answered  the first two  questions  in  the affirmative  and  left the third question open.  This  Court held  that the publication of the notice in the locality  as required  in the second part of Section 4(1) of the Act  was mandatory  and  unless that notice was given  in  accordance with  the provisions contained therein, the entire  acquisi- tion  proceedings would be vitiated. The Court further  held that the assumption that the sole purpose behind publication of  a notice in the locality under Section 4(1) was to  give an opportunity to the person interested in land to object to the  acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act was not  well- founded.  Therefore,  it could not be said that  where  such person  files  his objections the purpose was  achieved  and that  the  failure  to give public notice  in  the  locality needed  not  to be treated as fatal to the  proceedings.  We have  examined the observations of this Court at page 13  of judgment  upon which reliance has been placed on  behalf  of the respondent. We are, however, of the opinion that in view of the significant difference in the set of facts with which this  Court was dealing with in that case, the  observations therein are not relevant for our present purpose.      Reliance  was  also placed on certain  observations  of this  Court  in Shri Balaganesan Metals v.  M.R.  Shanmugham Chetty & Ors., [1987] 2 106 SCC  707  where this Court, dealing with the  provisions  of Section 10(3)(c) of T.N. Buildings (Lease and Control)  Act, 1960 observed that it was a settled rule of the  interpreta- tion of statutes that provisions of an Act should be  inter- preted in such manner as not to render any of its provisions otiose unless there were compelling reasons for the Court to resort  to that extreme contingency. It was  submitted  that the use of the expression "after the date of the publication of the notification" in sub-section (4) of Section 17  would become otiose if it is not construed as holding that  simul- taneous  publication  of notification under  Section  4  and declaration under Section 6 are not permissible.     In Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar &  Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 319 this Court had to deal with  Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and it was observed that while inter- preting statutes plain meaning has to be ascertained and the statute  has  to be read as a whole and in the  context  and that  statutory rules should be harmoniously read  with  the statute. The basic principle, it was reiterated at page  325 of the report, of construction of every statute was to  find out what is clearly stated and not to speculate upon  latent imponderables.  The  scheme of the Act also must  be  looked into.  In interpreting the statutes it is safer to  rely  on the obvious meaning rather than to investigate the imponder- ables.     It  is true that the expression "after the date  of  the publication of the notification" introduced in Section 17(4) can  be explained away as making no change from  the  provi- sions of law by reading it along with the amendment made  in Section  4 whereby in different situation in section 4,  the last  date of publication of the notice has been  determined as  the  date  of the publication of  the  notification  and similarly  in  Section 6 a date of the  publication  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

notice has been provided for. But the words "after the  date of  the publication of the notification" in sub-section  (4) of Section 17 read simpliciter clearly indicate that  decla- ration under Section 6 had to be made after the  publication of  the notification meaning thereby subsequent to the  date of  the  publication of the notification. 1t appears  to  us that  there is nothing in the scheme of the Act which  mili- tates against such a construction. At times where  emergency provisions  are invoked emergent action may be taken but  in such a situation in view of the state of law that was before it, the legislature has made a conscious change which cannot be explained away merely because this is as a consequence of the changes in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Reliance  was  placed  on behalf of the  appellant  on  Lord Howard 107 de Walden v. IRC, [1948] 2 AER 825 for the proposition  that no  alteration  in  meaning by alteration  of  language  can result unless the requirement of the English language demand it  or  those requirements permit it and the  sense  of  the section  demands it. In our opinion, m this case in view  of the  alteration of the language and meaning and the  meaning of  the  language used and the sense will be  in  consonance with the interpretation that the change was intended.  Simi- larly,  in  Hopes  v. Hopes, [1948] 2 AER 920,  it  was  the proposition  that  changes in the word may  be  because  the draftsman wanted to improve the style. But in this case  the style is not improved and the expression ’after the date’ as indicated  above, becomes otiose. It is job of the Court  to interpret  the  intention of the legislature  by  the  words used. The fairest and the most rational method to  interpret the  will of the legislature is by exploring his  intentions at the time when the law was made by signs, the most natural and  probable, says Blackstone in his ’Commentaries  on  the Laws of England’ (fascimile of 1st edition of 1765,  Univer- sity  of  Chicago Press, 1979) Volume, I, p  59.  And  these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. The words have to be understood in their usual and most known  signification.  If that be so, then  the  legislature must  have  had some intention in  choosing  the  expression ’after’ before "date of publication of the notification"  in sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act while making amend- ment  by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. It is true that  there were  some  changes giving the meaning of the  date  of  the publication in Section 4(1) and (2) as well as Section  6(2) of  the Act. But for that, there was no need for the use  of the  expression ’after the date’. If that be  the  position, then we must accept the interpretation put upon the  amended clause  by the High Court in the judgment under  appeal.  It will,  however, be upon to the appellants to issue  a  fresh declaration  under  section  6, if so  advised,  within  the period  contemplated in the proviso to section 6(1)  of  the Act read with its first explanation.     In  that view of the matter the appeal must fail and  is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.     In the view that we have taken, Civil Appeals Nos.  1843 and 1844 of 1986 are also dismissed without costs. N.V.K.                               Appeals dismissed. 108