REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9353-9354 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24733-24734 of 2009

J & K Housing Board & Anr.       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors.               .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

order dated 21.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Jammu  

and Kashmir at Jammu in LPAOW No. 60 of 2007 CMP No. 91  

of  2007 whereby the  High Court  dismissed the  said appeal  

filed by the J & K Housing Board - the appellants herein.

1

3) Brief facts:

(a)   On 17.05.2003, the Collector, Land Acquisition (Land  

Management Estates Officer),  Jammu and Kashmir Housing  

Board,  Jammu  (in  short  ‘the  Board’)  issued  a  Notification  

under Section 4 (1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition  

Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Act’) notifying  

the land measuring 181 kanals 19 marlas was needed for the  

public  purpose  by  the  Board,  namely,  for  “development  of  

Housing Colony” at Village Ferozpur, Tehsil Tangmarg, District  

Baramulla and calling for objections, if  any, within 15 days  

from  the  date  of  publication  of  the  said  notification.   The  

aforesaid  notification  was  published  in  the  Himalayan  Mail  

newspaper  on  21.05.2003  and  in  the  Greater  Kashmir  

newspaper  on  22.05.2003  in  the  State  of  Jammu  and  

Kashmir.    Again,  on 04.06.2003,  the  said notification was  

published in  two daily  newspapers.  On the very  same day,  

notice under Sections 5 and 5-A of the State Act was issued to  

all land owners for hearing of objections vide Office Order No.  

HB/LMEO/83-85 directing them to remain present at the spot  

on 16.06.2003 at 12.30 p.m.  On 09.06.2003, the Collector  

2

issued an Addendum vide office order No. HB/LMEO/87-96  

for  acquiring  additional  land  of  3  kanals  15  marlas.   On  

11.06.2003, a corrigendum was issued with regard to the said  

Addendum  stating  therein  that  the  measurement  of  land  

sought to be acquired was not correctly calculated and it may  

be read as 185 kanals 05 marlas instead of 185 kanals 14  

marlas and objections, if any, may be filed within 15 days of  

the issuance of the said corrigendum.

(b)  On 16.06.2003, none of the owners was present on the  

spot  except  some  paid  labourers/Chowkidars  who  were  

looking  after  the  said  land.   On  24.06.2003,  the  Collector,  

LMEO submitted a letter to the Deputy Commissioner (District  

Collector), Baramulla vide office letter No. HB/LMEO/120-22  

for recommending the case to higher authorities for issuance  

of declaration under Sections 6, 7 and 17 of the State Act.  On  

03.07.2003, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Collector  

to  take  action  in  accordance  with  the  Revenue  Department  

Circular No. 13/8-REV/(LAK)99/2000 dated 23.05.2000.  On  

16.07.2003, the respondents sent a telegram to the Tehsildar,  

Tangmarg, who in turn, forwarded the same to the office of the  

3

Collector on 19.07.2003.  In accordance with the directions of  

the  Deputy  Commissioner  (District  Collector),  the  Collector,  

vide letter No. HB/LEO/158-60 dated 22.07.2003, requested  

the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J & K Government to  

recommend  the  case  to  higher  authorities  for  issuance  of  

declaration under Sections 6 , 7 and 17 of the State Act.   

(c) By  Notification  No.  199  RD/04  dated  15.01.2004,  a  

declaration was made under Section 6 of the State Act to the  

effect that the land mentioned in the notification was needed  

for public purpose.  Further, in pursuance of Section 17 of the  

State Act, the Collector was directed to take possession of the  

aforesaid land subject to completion of all formalities including  

those under Sections 9(2) and 17-A of the State Act and Rule  

63 of the Land Acquisition Rules (in short ‘the Rules’) and to  

finalize  the  proceedings  immediately.   By  letter  dated  

17.01.2004, all the land owners were again informed by the  

Collector about the acquisition of the land under Sections 9  

and  9-A  of  the  State  Act  and  requesting  them  to  remain  

present on the spot on 06.02.2004 at 11 a.m.   

4

(d) On  30.01.2004,  a  letter  was  received  from  the  land  

owners requesting the Collector for  fixing a fresh date after  

due  notice  to  them.   A  draft  award  dated  28.07.2004  was  

passed by the office of the Collector assessing the total value of  

the  land  structure  and  the  fruit  trees  at  Rs.2,77,31,901/-.  

Notification No. HB/CLA/214-17 issued under Section 17-A of  

the  Act  was  published  in  the  Himalayan  Mail  Daily  on  

20.08.2004, in Greater Kashmir Daily on 23.08.2004 and in  

Greater ‘Alsafa’ Daily on 28.08.2004 mentioning the names of  

all the respondents.    

(e) Challenging  the  notifications,  on  30.08.2004,  the  

respondents filed Original Writ Petition being OWP No. 941 of  

2004 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu.  

Learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  Court,  vide  order  dated  

03.09.2007,  allowed  the  petition  of  the  respondents  herein  

with liberty to file their objections afresh within 15 days of the  

receipt of the copy of the said order.  Since the respondents-

land owners did not choose to receive the compensation and a  

reference under Sections 17-A and 32 of  the State Act was  

filed  on  03.09.2004  in  the  Court  of  District  and  Sessions  

5

Judge,  Baramulla,  a  cheque  bearing  No.  0148568  dated  

03.09.2004 amounting to Rs.2,34,71,151/- (80% of the total  

assessed compensation) was deposited with the District Judge,  

Baramulla with a request for disbursement of the said amount  

among the actual and real owners of the acquired land.  On  

the very same day, i.e., on 03.09.2004, the possession of the  

land was taken over by the representatives of Deputy General  

Manager, Housing Unit-II, Srinagar.       

(f)  Challenging the said order of the learned single Judge, the  

appellants  herein  filed  LPAOW  No.  60  of  2007  before  the  

Division Bench of  the  High Court.   The  Division Bench, by  

impugned  judgment  dated  21.05.2009,  dismissed  the  said  

appeal.   

(g) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed  

these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

4)  Heard Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the  

Board-appellants  herein  and  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  

senior counsel for the contesting respondents herein.   

6

5) Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the  Board,  after  taking  us  through  the  entire  acquisition  

proceedings  and  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  State  Act  

submitted  that  inasmuch  as  all  the  procedures  had  been  

meticulously followed by the Board and possession was also  

taken before filing of the writ petition, the order passed by the  

learned  single  Judge  quashing  the  acquisition  proceedings  

from the stage of proceedings under Sections 5 and 5-A of the  

State Act and also subsequent proceedings as confirmed by  

the  Division  Bench  are  not  sustainable  and  prayed  for  

interference by this Court.   

6) On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents/land  owners,  by  

drawing our attention to various mandatory provisions of the  

State Act and the J & K Housing Board Act, 1976, submitted  

that inasmuch as the appellants failed to follow the mandatory  

provisions of the State Act, the orders passed by the learned  

single Judge and the Division Bench are fully justified and no  

interference is called for by this Court.   

7

7) We  have  carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions,  

orders of the High Court and perused the relevant provisions  

and also various notifications/orders etc.

8) Before considering the rival  contentions,  it  is  useful to  

refer  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  State  Act  which  are  

applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.  Part II of the  

State Act deals with Acquisition.  The relevant provisions are  

as under :

“4.  Publication  of  preliminary  notification  and  powers  of  officers  thereupon –  Whenever  land  in  any  locality  is  needed or is  likely  to  be needed for any public  pupose the collector shall notify it –

(a) through a public notice to be affixed at convenient  places in the said locality and shall also cause it to  be known by beat of drum and through the local  Panchayats and Patwaries;

(b) in the Government Gazette; and (c) in two daily newspapers having largest circulation  

in the said locality of which at least one shall be in  the regional language.

(2)  …..”

“5. Payment for damage – The officers so authorized  shall at the time of such entry pay or tender payment for all  necessary damage to be done as aforesaid, and in case of  dispute  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  amount  so  paid  or  tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the Provincial  Revenue  authority  within  thirty  days  of  its  being  pronounced, whereupon, the decision of that officer shall be  final.”

“5-A. Hearing of objections. -  Any person interested  in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub- section  (1),  as  being  needed  or  likely  to  be  needed  for  a  public purpose may, within fifteen days after such land is  

8

notified in the manner prescribed in clause (a) of sub-section  (1) of Section 4 as being needed or likely to be needed for a  public purpose, subject to the acquisition of the land or of  any land in the locality, as the case may be.

(2)   Every  objection  under  sub-section  (1)  shall  be  made to the Collector in writing, and the collector shall give  the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person  or by pleader or by a person authorized by him and shall,  after  hearing  all  such  objections  and  after  making  such  further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the  case for the decision of the Government, together with the  record  of  the  proceedings  held  by  him  and  a  report  containing  his  recommendations  on  the  objections.   The  decision of the Government on the objections shall be final.

(3)   For the purpose of this section, a person shall be  deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to  claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired  under this Act.”

6.   Declaration  that  land  is  required  for  public  purpose  -   (1)   When  the  Government  is  satisfied  after  considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub- section  (2),  that  any  particular  land  is  needed  for  public  purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the  signature  of  the  Revenue Minister  or  of  some officer  duly  authorized in this behalf:

Provided  that  no  such  declaration  shall  be  made  unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is  to  be  paid wholly  or  partly  out  of  the  public  revenues or  some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

(2)   The  declaration  shall  be  published  in  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  areas,  and where  a  plan shall  have been made of the land, the place where such plan may  be inspected.

(3) The said declaration  shall  be  conclusive  evidence  that land is needed for a public purpose, and after  making  such  declaration  the  Government  may  acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.”

9

“9.  Notice to persons interested – (1) The Collector  shall  then  cause  public  notice  to  be  given  at  convenient  places  on  or  near  the  land  to  be  taken,  stating  that  the  Government intends to take possession of the land, and that  the claims to compensation for all interests in such land may  be made to him.

(2)  Such notice shall state the particulars of the land  so needed,  and shall  require  all  persons interested in the  land to appear personally or by agent, before the Collector at  a  time and place  therein  mentioned (such time not  being  earlier  than  fifteen  days  after  the  date  of  publication  of  notice, and to state the nature of their respective interests in  the land and the amount and particular of their claims to  compensation for such interests and their objections (if any)  to the measurements made under section 8.  The Collector  may, in any case,  require  such statements to be made in  writing and signed by the party or his agent.

(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same  effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such  persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be  entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside, or have  agents authorized to receive service on their behalf, within  the revenue district in which the land is situate.

(4) In  case  any  person  so  interested  resides  elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to  him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known  residence,  address  or  place  of  business  and  registered  in  accordance with the Postal Rules in force for the time being  in that behalf.”

Section 11 speaks about enquiry into measurements, value,  

claims and award by the Collector.  Section 12 makes it clear  

that  the  award  passed  by  the  Collector  shall  be  final  and  

conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons  

interested.   Sub-section(2)  of  Section  12 mandates  that  the  

1

Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of  

the  persons interested,  as  are  not  present  personally  or  by  

their  representatives  when  the  award  is  made.   Section  17  

relates to special powers entrusted to the Collector in case of  

urgency.  Section 18 speaks about the reference to Court to  

determine the objections as to the quantum of compensation  

or  the  measurement  of  land  and  procedure  to  be  followed  

thereupon.   In  the  last  Part,  i.e.,  Part  VIII,  which  provides  

miscellaneous provisions, Section 43 speaks about the service  

of notice and makes it clear that how notice under this Act  

shall be made etc.  

9) According to Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel  

for the appellants, the requirement, particularly under Section  

4, had duly been complied with and because of the fact that  

the respondents failed to submit  their  objections within the  

prescribed  period  under  Section  5-A(1),  the  stand  of  the  

respondents/land owners has to be rejected.  As per Section 4,  

whenever  land  in  any  locality  is  needed  for  any  public  

purpose, the Collector has to notify it in the manner provided  

in  sub-sections  (a),  (b)  and (c)  of  the  said  Section.   Public  

1

purpose  has  been  defined  in  Section  3(g)  of  the  State  Act.  

There is no dispute that the public purpose mentioned in the  

notification  issued  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  refers  to  

“development  of  housing  colony”  by  the  Board  at  Village  

Ferozpur, Tehsil Tangmarg, District Baramulla.  Undoubtedly,  

the said purpose is a public purpose in terms of Section 2(g) of  

the  State  Act.   However,  the  main  question  before  us  is  

whether the Collector has fully complied with the mandates  

and  procedures  provided  in  sub-sections  (a),  (b)  and  (c)  of  

Section 4.  The opening part of Section 4 i.e. “whenever land in  

any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public  

purpose the Collector  shall notify it”  makes it clear that the  

procedure  provided  in  sub-Sections  (a),  (b)  and  (c)  are  

mandatory  and  the  same  has  to  be  strictly  complied  with.  

(Emphasis supplied).

10) As far as affixing of notice in the locality and information  

through beat of drum as well as through local Panchayats and  

Patwaries are concerned provided in sub-section (a), that have  

been complied with.  The notification was duly published in  

the  Government  Gazette  which  satisfies  sub-section  (b)  of  

1

Section 4.  Sub-section(c) of  that Section mandates that the  

Collector has to notify his intention to acquire the land/lands  

needed  for  public  purpose  in  two  daily  newspapers  having  

largest  circulation in the said locality  of  which at  least  one  

shall be in the regional language.  (Emphasis supplied).

11) Before  elaborating  the  compliance  of  sub-section (c)  of  

Section 4 in terms of  mandates provided therein,  since  Mr.  

Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel has claimed that there  

is substantial compliance of provisions required above and no  

flaw  is  to  be  found  in  the  acquisition  proceedings,  let  us  

consider various decisions relied on by him.

12) In  State of T.N. & Anr. vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal &  

Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 269, paragraph nos. 8 and 9 were pressed  

into service.  On going through those paragraphs, we are able  

to see that the land owners filed their objections to the notice  

issued under Section 5-A and Rule 3 of the Rules framed by  

the State Government.  Except the above factual information,  

nothing is available on record in support of the stand taken by  

the appellants.

1

13) The next decision relied on by Mr. Rajiv Dhawan is May  

George  vs.  Special  Tahsildar  & Ors.,  (2010)  13  SCC 98  

wherein he very much pressed into service paragraph 25 of the  

said judgment which reads as under:

“25. The  law  on  this  issue  can be  summarised  to  the  effect that in order to declare a provision mandatory, the test  to  be  applied  is  as  to  whether  non-compliance  with  the  provision could render the entire proceedings invalid or not.  Whether  the  provision is  mandatory  or  directory,  depends  upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language  for which the intent is clothed. The issue is to be examined  having regard to the context,  subject-matter  and object  of  the statutory provisions in question. The Court may find out  as to what would be the consequence which would flow from  construing it in one way or the other and as to whether the  statute  provides  for  a  contingency  of  the  non-compliance  with the provisions and as to whether the non-compliance is  visited by small penalty or serious consequence would flow  therefrom  and  as  to  whether  a  particular  interpretation  would defeat or frustrate the legislation and if the provision  is mandatory, the act done in breach thereof will be invalid.”

In the above paragraph, one of us, Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. has  

summarized the law as to declare a provision mandatory or  

not and the test to be applied whether non-compliance with  

the provision could render the entire  proceedings invalid  or  

not.   Except the above proposition of law with which we are in  

entire agreement, the said decision is also not supporting the  

stand of the appellants.

1

14) The judgment in  Talson Real Estate (P) Ltd. vs. State  

of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 186, relied on by Mr.  

Rajiv Dhawan, makes it clear that the provisions of Section 5-

A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as  

“the Central Act”) are attracted only when a person interested  

in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) makes  

objection in writing to the Collector within 30 days from the  

date of the publication of the notification. It further makes it  

clear that the period of 30 days will have to be counted from  

the last day of the publication of the notification under Section  

4 of the Act after noting the date of publication in the Official  

Gazette  and  in  two  daily  newspapers  and  notifying  the  

substance  of  such  notification  on  the  site,  this  Court  

concluded that the appellants therein did not choose to file  

their objections within the time prescribed under Section 5-A  

of the Act.

15) In  Ajay Krishan Shinghal & Ors. vs. Union of India  

& Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 721, Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, pressed into  

service  paragraph  8  which  speaks  about  the  compliance  of  

mandatory  requirements  under  Section  4(1).   On  going  

1

through  the  factual  details  available  on  the  files  produced  

before it, this Court concluded that the provisions of Section  

4(1) of the Central Act have been fully complied with.   

16) In  Sulochana  Chandrakant  Galande  vs.  Pune  

Municipal Transport & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 467, which is a  

judgment rendered by us under the Urban Land (Ceiling and  

Regulation) Act, 1976, Mr. Rajiv Dhawan relied on paragraph  

22.   In that paragraph, this Court has held that once the land  

is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances.  

It further shows that it is not the concern of the landowner  

how his land is used and whether the land is being used for  

the  purpose  for  which  it  was  acquired  or  for  any  other  

purpose.   It  was further  held  that the land owner  becomes  

persona non grata once the land vests in the State and he has  

a  right  to  get  compensation  only  for  the  same.   The  said  

decision is not helpful to the issue raised in the case on hand.

17) The last  decision relied on by Mr.  Rajiv  Dhawan is  in  

Banda  Development  Authority,  Banda  vs.  Moti  Lal  

Agarwal & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 394.  He relied on paragraph  

1

37 which speaks about principles and how the possession has  

to be taken under the Central Act.  The said decision is also  

not helpful to the case on hand.

18) On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior  

counsel  appearing for  the respondents heavily  relied on the  

principles laid down in the following decisions:

(i) Khub Chand & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,  

AIR 1967 SC 1074 = (1967) 1 SCR 120.

(ii)   Syed Hasan Rasul Numa & Ors. vs. Union of India &  

Ors. , (1991) 1 SCC 401 and

(iii) Kunwar Pal Singh (dead) by L.Rs. vs. State of U.P. &  

Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 85.  

19)   In  Khub  Chand  (supra), Subba  Rao,  C.J.  after  

considering similar rival contentions and quoting Sections 4, 5  

and 5-A of the Central Act answered several aspects including  

the mandatory nature of publication provided under Section 4  

of  the  Act.   The  following  discussion  and  conclusion  are  

relevant:

1

“6. …..The learned Advocate-General argued that a combined  reading of Sections 4, 5 and 5-A indicates that the direction  in the second part of Section 4 that the Collector shall cause  public notice of the substance of the notification to be given  at convenient places in the said locality was only directory.  He  pointed  out  that  Section  4  contemplated  only  a  notification  in  general  terms  and  that  under  Section  5(2)  after the Collector ascertained the necessary particulars, the  Government had to issue a fresh notification giving sufficient  description of the land intended to be acquired along with a  plan, if one had been made, and also to cause a public notice  to  be  given  of  the  substance  of  the  said  notification  at  convenient places on or near the land to be acquired. As two  notices were contemplated by the Act — one in general terms  and another with specifications — and as both the notices  should be published and their substance should be notified  at  convenient  places,  the  argument  proceeded,  that  the  direction to cause a public notice  of  the substance of  the  notification  to  be  given  at  convenient  places  in  the  said  locality  under  Section  4  was  only  directory,  for  the  party  would get under the later notification better particulars and  thus he would not in any case be prejudiced.

7. This argument was not accepted by the High Court,  and in our view rightly. The provisions of a statute conferring  power  on  the  Government  to  compulsorily  acquire  lands  shall be strictly construed. Section 4 in clear terms says that  the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of  such notification to be given at convenient places in the said  locality.  The  provision  is  mandatory  in  terms.  Doubtless,  under  certain  circumstances,  the  expression  “shall”  is  construed  as  “may”.  The  term  “shall”  in  its  ordinary  significance is mandatory and the court shall ordinarily give  that  interpretation  to  that  term  unless  such  an  interpretation  leads  to  some  absurd  or  inconvenient  consequence  or  be  at  variance  with  the  intent  of  the  legislature, to be collected from other parts of the Act. The  construction  of  the  said  expression  depends  on  the  provisions  of  a  particular  Act,  the  setting  in  which  the  expression  appears,  the  object  for  which  the  direction  is  given,  the  consequences  that  would  flow  from  the  infringement of the direction and such other considerations.  The  object  underlying  the  said  direction  in  Section  4  is  obvious. Under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, after  such  a  notice  was  given,  the  officer  authorised  by  the  Government in that behalf could enter the land and interfere  

1

with the possession of the owner in the manner prescribed  thereunder.  The legislature  thought  that  it  was absolutely  necessary  that  before  such  officer  can  enter  the  land  of  another, the owner thereof should have a clear notice of the  intended entry. The fact that the owner may have notice of  the particulars of the intended acquisition under Section 5(2)  does not serve the purpose of Section 4, for such a notice  shall be given after the appropriate officer or officers enter  the land and submit the particulars mentioned in Section 4.  The objects of the two sections are different: the object of one  section  is  to  give  intimation  to  the  person  whose  land  is  sought to be acquired, of the intention of the officer to enter  his land before he does so and that of the other is to enable  him to know the particulars of the land which is sought to be  acquired. In the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of  1894) there is no section corresponding to Section 5(2) of the  Act.  Indeed  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  5  of  the  Act  was  omitted  by  Act  15  of  1960 and Section  5-A  was  suitably  amended to bring the said provision in conformity with those  of  Central  Act  1  of  1894.  Whatever  may  be  said  on  the  question  of  construction  after  the  said  amendment  — on  which  we  do  not  express  any  opinion  —  before  the  amendment,  Sections  4  and  5(2)  were  intended  to  serve  different purposes.

8. Indeed, the wording of Section 4(2) of the Act leads to  the same conclusion. It says, “thereupon it shall be lawful  for  any  officer,  generally  or  specially  authorised  by  the  Government  in  this  behalf,  and  for  his  servants  and  workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels of any  land in  such locality....”  The  expressions  “thereupon”  and  “shall be lawful” indicate that unless such a public notice is  given, the officer or his servants cannot enter the land. It is a  necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry.  The non-compliance with the said condition makes the entry  of the officer or his servants unlawful. On the express terms  of sub-section (2), the officer or his servants can enter the  land to be acquired only if that condition is complied with. If  it is not complied with, he or his servants cannot exercise  the power of entry under Section 4(2), with the result that if  the expression “shall” is construed as “may”, the object of  the  sub-section  itself  will  be  defeated.  The  statutory  intention is, therefore clear, namely, that the giving of public  notice  is  mandatory.  If  so,  the  notification  issued  under  Section  4  without  complying  with  the  said  mandatory  

1

direction would be void and the land acquisition proceedings  taken pursuant thereto would be equally void.”

20) In  Syed  Hasan  Rasul  Numa  (supra),  this  Court  

considered the dictum laid down by Subba Rao, C.J., in Khub  

Chand (supra).  The following conclusion is relevant:

  “13. There is a broad basis for the view that we have taken from  the decisions of this Court although on the provisions of other  enactment.  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  provides for publication of the notification in the official Gazette  and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality where  the land is situated of which at least one shall be in the regional  language. Section 4(1) further provides that the Collector shall  cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be  given at convenient places in the said locality. In Khub Chand v.  State of Rajasthan Subba Rao, C.J., while construing the object  and scope of Section 4(1) expressed the view that provisions of  the  section  requiring  public  notice  are  mandatory  and  the  legislature  thought  that  it  was absolutely  necessary  that  the  owner of the land should have a clear notice of the proposed  acquisition. It was said that the fact that the owner may have  notice  of  the  particulars  of  the  intended  acquisition  by  any  other means does not serve the purpose of Section 4 and does  not absolve the obligation to follow the method of publication of  the notification. It was also observed that the notification issued  under  Section  4(1)  without  complying  with  the  mandatory  direction would be void and the land acquisition proceedings  taken pursuant thereto would also be void. This view has been  reiterated in a number of subsequent decisions of this Court. In  Collector  (District  Magistrate),  Allahabad v.  Raja  Ram Jaiswal  most of the earlier decisions have been referred to and the view  taken in Khub Chand case has been reiterated.

14. In the instant case, the notice has been published only  in  the  local  newspapers,  namely,  the  Daily  Pratap,  the  Hindustan  Times,  the  Statesman,  the  Indian  Express and the  Navbharat  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 the Section 44 have not been complied with, the  

2

notice  in  question  has  no  validity  and  the  action  taken  pursuant thereto has also no validity.”

21) In  Kunwar  Pal  Singh  (supra),  this  Court  while  

construing three modes of publication, namely, (i) publication  

in the Official Gazette, (ii) in two daily newspapers circulating  

in the locality and, (iii) causing public notice of the substance  

in  the  locality  where  the  land  situate,  provided  under  the  

Central Act, held as under:-

“16. Section 6(2), on a plain reading, deals with the various  modes  of  publication  and  they  are:  (a)  publication  in  the  Official  Gazette,  (b)  publication  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 (c)  causing public notice of the substance of such declaration to  be given at convenient places in the said locality. There is no  option left with anyone to give up or waive any mode and all  such modes have to be strictly resorted to. The principle is  well  settled  that  where  any statutory  provision provides a  particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing  or  act  must  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  manner  prescribed therefor in the Act”.

22) Though all the above decisions arose under the Central  

Act,  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  similar  provisions  have  been  

incorporated  in  the  State  Act.   We  have  already  extracted  

Sections 4, 5, 5-A and 6 of the State Act which are similar to  

the provisions of the Central Act.  From the materials placed  

before us, we are satisfied that the conditions prescribed in  

2

Section 4(1)(a) and (b) had been complied with except Section  

4(1)(c)  which  have  not  been  followed.   In  the  light  of  the  

language  used  in  Section  4(1),  namely,  “the  Collector  shall  

notify  it”,  the  procedures/directions  provided  in  Section  

4(1)(a)(b) and (c) ought to be strictly complied with.  There is  

no option left with anyone to give up or waive any of the mode  

and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to.  It is settled  

law that when any statutory provision provides a particular  

manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must  

be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor in  

the Act.  Merely because the parties concerned were aware of  

the acquisition proceedings or served with individual notices  

does not make the position alter when the statute makes it  

very clear that all  the procedures/modes have to be strictly  

complied  with  in  the  manner  provided  therein.   Merely  

because  the  land  owners  failed  to  submit  their  objections  

within  15  days  after  the  publication  of  notification  under  

Section  4(1)  of  the  State  Act,  the  authorities  cannot  be  

permitted to claim that it need not be strictly resorted to.  In  

the case on hand, admittedly, the notification was published  

2

in two daily newspapers i.e. in the Himalayan Mail and in the  

Greater  Kashmir  but  one  of  them  was  not  a  newspaper  

published  in  regional  language  i.e.  Kashmiri  which  is  the  

requirement of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act.  We have already held  

that all the requirements provided in Section 4(1)(a)(b) and (c)  

are mandatory and have to be strictly adhered to.  In addition  

to the same, though on 11.06.2003 a corrigendum was issued  

for  enlarging  the  area  of  acquisition,  admittedly,  this  

corrigendum was not published in any newspaper.

23) As pointed out above, it is true that the prescribed period  

of 15 days as mentioned in Section 5-A(1) of the Act for filing  

objections starts running from the date of publication of the  

notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  in  the  manner  

provided  in  Clause  (a),  however,  at  the  same  time,  the  

conditions  as  prescribed  under  Section  4(1)  have  not  been  

fully complied with.  It cannot be claimed that compliance of  

provisions of sub-Sections (a)  to (c)  of  Section 4(1)  are only  

directory.  On the other hand, it is not only mandatory but all  

the  terms  provided  therein  are  to  be  complied  with  very  

strictly.   This has been reiterated in Section 5-A of the Act  

2

also.  By virtue of the provisions of the State Act, the valuable  

right/ownership of the land owners being taken away, hence,  

those provisions have to be strictly construed.  The object of  

publication in terms of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act is to intimate  

the people who are likely to be affected by the notification.  It  

is not in dispute that when the officers attempted to serve the  

notice by affixation or to persons in charge of the land, they  

were informed about the absence of the land owners due to  

disturbance in the area in question and it was also informed  

that they are residing in Delhi.  In spite of such information,  

the authorities have not taken care of sending proper notice to  

the respondents or comply with the provisions,  particularly,  

Section 4(1)(c) of the Act.  In view of the above discussion, we  

agree  with  the  reasoning  and  ultimate  conclusion  of  the  

learned  single  Judge  quashing  the  acquisition  proceedings  

from the stage of Section 5A of the State Act and the decision  

of  the  Division  Bench affirming  the  decision  of  the  learned  

single Judge.        

2

24) Apart from the above infirmities, Mr. Venugopal, learned  

senior counsel for the respondents after taking us through the  

provisions of the J&K Housing Board Act, 1976, particularly,  

framing of housing schemes and acquisition and disposal of  

land contended that in the absence of any approved Scheme  

by the Board, it is not permitted to proceed further.  In respect  

of the above argument, he highlighted Sections 14, 15, 17, 19  

and 26(1)(2) of the Housing Board Act, 1976.  Inasmuch as we  

accept the reasonings and the conclusion of the learned single  

Judge quashing the acquisition proceedings from the stage of  

Section 5-A and further direction to file their objections afresh  

within 15 days of the receipt of copy of his order, we are not  

inclined  to  go  into  the  said  contention.   However,  the  

contesting respondents are free to raise the said objection and  

it is for the authority concerned/government to take a decision  

one way or other if the same is acceptable for which we are not  

expressing any opinion.

2

25) In the light  of  the above discussion,  we are  unable  to  

accept the stand taken by the Board-appellants herein, on the  

other hand, we are in entire agreement with the decision of the  

learned  single  Judge  as  affirmed  by  the  Division  Bench.  

Consequently,  the  appeals  fail  and the  same are  dismissed  

with  no order  as to  costs.   In  view of  the  dismissal  of  the  

appeals of the Board and in the light of the various objections  

raised, the respondents/land owners are permitted to file their  

additional objections, if they so desire, within 15 days from the  

date  of  receipt  of  this  judgment.   On receipt  of  those  fresh  

objections, the Collector of the Board will  consider both the  

original  and  additional  objections  and  also  afford  personal  

hearing to them at the Housing Board Office situated at Green  

Belt  Park,  Gandhi  Nagar,  Jammu  and  proceed  further  in  

accordance with law.

...…………….…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                   

  .…....…………………………………J.    (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 4, 2011.

2