BHAGAWAN DAS JAISWAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — 1980 DIGILAW 191 (CAL)

BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging a Notification dated the 28th June, 1979 published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 29th June, 1979 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). I shall set out herein the facts of this case so far as they are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the Rule herein. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a trust known as ?debuttur Estate of Sree Purushottam Bhagwan?. Premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) forms a part of the said trust estate. The said premises comprised of a six-storeyed building covering an area measuring approximately 9 cottahs and vacant land appurtenant to the said building measuring approximately 2 cottahs. On the said vacant land there stands a structure which at all material times was and still is utilized for garage and godown purpose. The respondent No. 3 i. e. the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was at all material times and still is a tenant in possession of the said premises under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 8000/- per month. The Board has its office in the said building and is utilizing the said structure on the said vacant land for its godown and garage purpose. ( 3 ) ORIGINALLY by way of Gazette Notification dated 29th April, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the first notification) a notification under S. 4 of the said Act was issued in respect of the said premises. On 22nd August 1977 the petitioner made an application in this Court in its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction challenging the said first notification dated 29th April, 1977. A Rule and an ad-interim order of injunction was issued in this case being Matter No. 762 of 1977 (Bhagwandas Shaw v. State of West Bengal and Ors. ). The said Matter No. 762 of 1977 was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 30th September, 1977, when the Rule Nisi was made absolute and the said first notification was quashed. The respondents were restrained from giving effect to the said notification. ). The said Matter No. 762 of 1977 was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 30th September, 1977, when the Rule Nisi was made absolute and the said first notification was quashed. The respondents were restrained from giving effect to the said notification. Thereafter by an order dated 29th June, 1979 published in the Calcutta Gazette of the same date the first notification was cancelled. What happened thereafter is that the notification dated 28th June, 1979 was issued and published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 29th June, 1979. This was a notification under S. 4 of the said Act. This is the notification which is challenged in this proceeding. A Rule and an ad-interim order was issued. ( 4 ) IN support of the rule Mr. Gautam Chakrabortti has made fourfold submissions: firstly, he has submitted that the Gazette notification is illegal and without jurisdiction and the same must be set aside on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of S. 4 read with S. 5a (1) of the said Act, the relevant portions of which are set out hereinbelow ;section 4 (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or 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 notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. ?5a (1 ). Any person interested in any land which has been notified under S. 4, sub-s (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. ? ( 5 ) MR. Chakrabortti has submitted that under S. 4, when any land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose the appropriate authority must publish the notification in the Calcutta Gazette to the effect and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Chakrabortti has submitted that under S. 4, when any land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose the appropriate authority must publish the notification in the Calcutta Gazette to the effect and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. He has drawn my attention to S. 5a of the said Act which provides that any person interested in any land which has been notified under S 4 (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days after issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in his locality, as the case may be. In this connection, he has submitted, S. 5a makes it quite clear that such objection is to be filed within thirty days after the issue of the notification and the notification in this context means the Gazette Notification under S. 4. He has submitted firstly that in this case there has been no public notice. In any event, there is no proof of any such public notice. Even if there has been, the admitted position is that such alleged public notice was given only on 29th July, 1979, that is, one month after publication in the Calcutta Gazette. He has submitted that under the law, public notice within the meaning of S. 4 (1)of the Act, has to given simultaneously or immediately with the publication of the Gazette Notification. He has submitted that otherwise no useful purpose will be served, because the right of the aggrieved party to make an objection within the statutory period cannot be availed of. In this case, as admittedly the public notice was not given until one month after the publication of the Notification in the Calcutta Gazette, the Gazette Notification is bad. In this connection, he has relied on the following decisions: state of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib AIR 1973 SC 2361 ; gangadharaiah v. State of Mysore (1961) 39 Mysore Law Journal 883 : ILR (1960) Mysore 636. Debi Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State and Ors. AIR 1975 Punjab and haryana 125. ( 6 ) THE second submission of Mr. Debi Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State and Ors. AIR 1975 Punjab and haryana 125. ( 6 ) THE second submission of Mr. Chakraborty is that this matter has become res judicata as an earlier Notification under S 4 (1) in respect of the very same premises has been quashed by this Court. The public purpose in both the notification is practically the same. In the first notification, the purpose was ?for the establishment of the office of the Board of Secondary Education West Bengal?, whereas in the present notification the public purpose specified is ?for the office of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. ? He has submitted that what is res judicata is the decision of the Court and not the reasons therein. A similar notification on a similar public purpose having been quashed this stands concluded and binding. In this connection he has referred to some decision of the Supreme Court. ( 7 ) THE third submission of Mr. Chakrabortti is with reference to Schedule 16, Rule 20 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and he has drawn many attention to the affidavit of Pratibhamay Mitra affirmed on the 19th September, 1979, to the following effect: - ?11. With reference to paragraph 13 of the said petition, I say that the respondent No. 3 is facing acute shortage of accommodation of premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta 16. In 1969 when the Board came into possession of premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta-16 and started its office there, the work load was not so heavy like the present days. At that time, the Board used to control and supervise about 4500 schools and during that period, about 90,000 candidates used to sit for the School Final Examination. With the gradual recognition of a number of Schools from time to time, the Board is at present controlling and supervising about 8,000 Schools and about 3,00,000 candidates normally appear in the examinations each year, conducted by the Board. The number of recognized schools and candidates increase gradually every year to increase the work load of the Board. With the gradual recognition of a number of Schools from time to time, the Board is at present controlling and supervising about 8,000 Schools and about 3,00,000 candidates normally appear in the examinations each year, conducted by the Board. The number of recognized schools and candidates increase gradually every year to increase the work load of the Board. In view of the heavy work load, and for acute shortage of accommodation, it is necessary to raise additional two floors on the building already in existence and also to construct a 6 storied annexe-building on the said vacant land of 2 cottahs at premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta-16 so as to solve the said problems effectively. The Board is also finding difficulty for running its administration at premises No. 77/2, Park Street. The Board has to take additional accommodation in the ground floor, the 1st floor and the 4th floor of premises No. 17, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road at a monthly rental of Rs. 3,621/- and also another accommodation in the 1st and 2nd floors of premises No. 74, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road at a monthly rental of Rs. 3,537/ -. From these scattered office at the said premises No. 17 and 74, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, the overall administration from the Board's Head Office at premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta-16 cannot be properly run, as a result of which various works are suffering to a great extent. For taking a final decision either by the Administrator or the Secretary and Deputy Secretaries of the Board, the officers and employees from those scattered offices had to come to the said Head Office and the necessary files from those scattered offices had to be brought to the Head Office for such final decision. There is grave risk in carrying files from those scattered offices to the Head Office and further it wastes valuable time by the process now being followed. If everything could be done from the Head Office alone, it will save time, labour and inconvenience etc. In that view of the matter, it is necessary to acquire the disputed land and building so that proper and sufficient accommodation can be made available to the Board for effectively running its office. In fact, about Rs. If everything could be done from the Head Office alone, it will save time, labour and inconvenience etc. In that view of the matter, it is necessary to acquire the disputed land and building so that proper and sufficient accommodation can be made available to the Board for effectively running its office. In fact, about Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) have been kept in deposit in the Building Fund of the Board to meet the possible expenses of the proposed constructions at premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta-16. Completion of the proposed constructions of the building at premises No. 77/2, Park Street, will be absolute property of the Board. The entire cost of proposed acquisition will be wholly borne by the State Government. In view of the present tenancy in respect of premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta-16, it is not possible to raise the proposed construction in a planned manner which would be convenient to the Board for running its office properly. Even if the present landlord of premises No. 77/2, Park Street, Calcutta-16, agrees to raise the proposed constructions, there would be heavy burden on the Board because the monthly rent and Corporation Tax would be increased to a great extent. In view of the acute shortage of accommodation, the Board had no other alternative but to move the State Government for acquiring the dispute property for a good public purpose. On being prima facie satisfied about the Board's need the State Government was pleased to issue the impugned notification dated 28th June, 1979. Save what appears from the said notification, I deny all allegations to the contrary. It is also denied that the impugned Notification dated 28th June, 1979 is a verbatim reproduction of the said previous notification dated 29th April, 1977?. ( 8 ) MR. Chakrobortti has submitted that in view of the said rules of the Calcutta Municipal Act there is a restriction as to the further construction vertically to the said building and there are also some restrictions on the utilization of the vacant land in the manner suggested in the said affidavit. ( 9 ) LASTLY Mr. ( 8 ) MR. Chakrobortti has submitted that in view of the said rules of the Calcutta Municipal Act there is a restriction as to the further construction vertically to the said building and there are also some restrictions on the utilization of the vacant land in the manner suggested in the said affidavit. ( 9 ) LASTLY Mr. Chakrabortti has submitted that this premises cannot be needed for public purpose and it has not been stated how and under what circumstances this building which is under the tenancy of the Board for such a number of years past, is needed to be acquired for a public purpose. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the State learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. Naranarayan Gooptu has made his submissions. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the Board Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel also made his submissions. ( 12 ) REGARDING the first submission of Mr. Chakrabortti it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents firstly that the period of 30 days is to be calculated from the date of the public notice and not from the date of the publication in the Gazette as referred to in sub-s. (1) of S. 4 of the said Act. It has further been submitted that in the case of West Bengal there is a Manual which sets out the procedure for issue of the notification and the public notice and also inviting objections. Rule 19a of the said Manuals provides as follows: - ?19a (1) On receipt from the requiring officer or department of the application, map and memorandum referred to in paragraph 17, the Land Acquisition Deputy Collector of the district shall prepare a draft notification under S. 4 of the Act in Form 3a if the land is required for the Government of India or in Form 3 in any other case. This is necessary in all cases of acquisition, even though the operation of S. 5a may be suspended by an order under S. 17 (4 ). This is necessary in all cases of acquisition, even though the operation of S. 5a may be suspended by an order under S. 17 (4 ). The Land Acquisition Deputy Collector shall at once submit the draft notification on direct to Government in the administrative department except in cases of acquisition for a department of Government or a Railway in which case he shall send it to the requiring officer of the department or to the Chief Engineer of the Railway as the case may be, for submission to Government in the administrative department, through the proper channel, with such report as is considered necessary. If the administrative department approves the draft notification it shall ask the Land and Land Revenue Department to publish the notification in the Calcutta Gazette. At this stage, the preparation of an estimate is ordinarily not necessary, but the Collector may, if he thinks fit, or if he is asked by the requiring officer, in order to prevent delay or for other reasons, cause an estimate to be prepared and send it to the requiring officer. The submission of the notification must not be delayed on account of the estimate. (2) On the publication of the notification in the Calcutta Gazette, the Collector without waiting for the receipt of a copy of the notification or other order from Government shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. This will ordinarily be done by affixing a copy of the notification at one or more place or places on or near the land proposed to be acquired and also at a conspicuous public place in a village or part of the town in which the land is situated. Copies of the notification shall also be posted in the Collector's Office, Sub-divisional Officer's office and the office of the requiring officer. Copies of the notification shall also be served on such persons as are at this stage known or believed to be interested in the land proposed to be acquired. No elaborate or detailed enquiry need be made for this purpose. A local enquiry by such agency as the Collector may think fit, and an examination of (1) the Land Registration Registers, (2) Settlement Records and (3) the Municipal Assessment Register, whichever may be relevant to the particular case, will ordinarily be sufficient. No elaborate or detailed enquiry need be made for this purpose. A local enquiry by such agency as the Collector may think fit, and an examination of (1) the Land Registration Registers, (2) Settlement Records and (3) the Municipal Assessment Register, whichever may be relevant to the particular case, will ordinarily be sufficient. (3) The Collector shall issue notices on the persons, who file objections within the period of 30 days after the date on which public notice of the substance of the notification is given in the locality, fixing a date, time and place for the hearing of the objections. In the case of a joint objection by a number of persons, the notice shall be served on the first or the principal objector. The objectors shall be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their objections if they desire to do so. Information shall also be given to the requiring officer of the administrative department or the local authority or company at whose instance the notification under S. 4 has been published, so that they may be represented at the hearing of the objections. (4) When dealing with the objections, as well as when no objection has been filed, the Collector shall also examine the proposal for acquisition from the point of view of the instructions given in paragraph 12. He shall also consider and state in his report whether the proposed acquisition is likely to be prejudicial to agricultural interests. (5) The Collector of the district shall submit to the Commissioner his report on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings, as required by S 5a (2) of the Act. The Commissioner shall record his opinion on the case in all cases and forward it to Government in the administrative department. If no objection be filed within the 30 days allowed by S. 5a no proceeding under that section is necessary, but the collector shall report the fact to Government in the administrative department through the Commissioner, and shall also state whether there is any objections to the acquisition on public grounds as mentioned in sub paragraph (4) above and paragraph 12. In either case, when the acquisition is for a Railway, the Collector shall at the same time furnish the Chief Engineer of the Railway with a copy of his report to the Commissioner, together with a copy of the report, if any, of the officer making the enquiry under S. 5a. A draft declaration under S. 6 of the Act together with an estimate of the cost of acquisition and a plan of the land proposed to be acquired shall also be submitted along with his report when the Collector recommends the proposed acquisition. In the case of acquisition for a department of Government, the Collector shall at the same time furnish the requiring officer with a copy of the estimate. The Commissioner will submit these documents direct to the administrative department concerned unless the acquisition is for a Railway (Sub-paragraph 10 ). The administrative department will then, in consideration with the Land and Land Department, issue final orders on the objections and on the proposal and communicate the same to the Land and Land Revenue Department for necessary action, with intimation, in the case of acquisition for a department of Government, that necessary provision of fund has been made. (6) If it is decided that the Land as notified under S. 4 in Form 3 or 3a, as the case be, all be acquired, the Collector shall be directed to submit to the Commissioner a draft declaration under S. 6 a plan and an estimate of the cost of acquisition if these have not already be submitted. (7) If it is decided that a part only of the land as notified under S. 4 in Form 3 or 3a, shall be acquired, the Collector shall be directed to submit through the Commissioner a draft declaration under S. 5 for such part together with a plan and an estimate of the cost of acquisition. (8) If it is decided that the acquisition shall not be proceeded with, the Collector of the district shall submit a draft notification to Government in the administrative concerned through the Commissioner, for cancellation of notification in Form 3 or 3a, under S. 4. This notification will be published in the Calcutta Gazette by the Land and Land Revenue Department. The same procedure shall be followed in respect of any part of the notified area if it is decided that such part shall not be acquired. This notification will be published in the Calcutta Gazette by the Land and Land Revenue Department. The same procedure shall be followed in respect of any part of the notified area if it is decided that such part shall not be acquired. (9) The rules in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) above will not apply in any case in which Government under S. 17 (4) of the Act have directed that the provisions of S. 5a shall not apply. When it is proposed to ask Government to make such a direction the draft declaration under S. 6 and estimate and plan shall be submitted to the Commissioner for transmission to Government in the administrative department along with the draft notification under S. 4 (see sub-paragraph (1) above), but the Collector shall first satisfy himself that there is no objection on the public or religious grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above and paragraph 12 and certificate to this effect shall be given on the draft declaration. The notification will be in Form No. 3 or 3a, as the case may be, but it will not contain the last sentence regarding filing of objections. On publication of the notification in the Calcutta Gazette it shall also be published at convenient places in the locality as required by S. 4 (1) and in the manner laid down in the first portion of sub-paragraph (2) above. (10) In the case of acquisition for a Railway the procedure prescribed in sub paragraphs (5), (6), (7) and (9) above will be modified as follows. The Commissioner will send the draft declaration, plans, estimates and ?schedules received from the Collector, not direct to the administrative department concerned but to the General Manager of the Railway for transmission to Government in the Works and Buildings Department (Railway) with an intimation that necessary provision of funds has been made; at this stage the land plans and schedules will be attested by the Chief Engineer or by the General Manager as required by rule 66 of the Railway Board's Rules printed at Part II of the Land Acquisition Manual, 1947. ( 13 ) MY attention is particularly drawn to clause (3) of Rule 19a mentioned above. ( 13 ) MY attention is particularly drawn to clause (3) of Rule 19a mentioned above. In this context my attention has also been drawn to the main notification which also invites filing of objections within 30 days after the date on which public notice of the substance of the notification is given in the locality. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that so far as West Bengal is concerned, it is governed by those rules and the Supreme Court decision on the Mysore case has no application because that was not based on the West Bengal rules but on Mysore rules. In addition Mr. Chatterjee has drawn my attention specifically to the Mysore Rule as set out in the judgment of the Mysore High Court and submitted that the decision was based mainly on the Mysore rules which have different provisions, that is, provision for giving public notice immediately. ( 14 ) ON the question of res judicata it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that there were two different notifications and accordingly the question of res judicata did not arise. ( 15 ) MY attention has also been drawn to the Minutes of this Court dated the 30th September 1977, in Matter No. 762 of 1977. The production of the minutes was caused and from this it appears as follows: ?matter No. 762 of 1977 bhagwandas Jaiswal, Mr. Bachawat with Mr. Sinha appears and submits: v. State of West Bengal and Ors, Mr. P. K. Chatterjee appears and submits: the COURT: In this application challenge to the acquisition order has been made on two grounds, namely, that the purpose of acquisition was not public purpose and that no public notice was given. If appears, however that public notice had been given but the period of filing objections was too short. On that ground above the acquisition notice is liable to be quashed. In that view of the matter it is not necessary for me to consider whether the acquisition was for public purpose or not. In the premises, there will be an order in terms of prayer (a ). The Reliance has been placed in this connection on the decision Court in the case of Syad Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by LRs and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by LRs and Ors. , AIR 1976 SC 1569 (para 8 ). In the premises, there will be an order in terms of prayer (a ). The Reliance has been placed in this connection on the decision Court in the case of Syad Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by LRs and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by LRs and Ors. , AIR 1976 SC 1569 (para 8 ). ( 16 ) REGARDING objection on the ground of violation of Schedule 16, Rule 20 of the Calcutta Municipal Act it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that this is premature. After acquisition, the Board may not keep the same structure but may build a new structure which is not open to the Board now. It should not be presumed by the Court that there is going to be violation of such rules. ( 17 ) ON the question of purpose it has been stated that the fact that the Board has been a tenant for such a number of years cannot be a ground for challenging the notification under S. 4 for acquiring the said premises. The Board being the owner would have much more right in respect of the user of the said premises than as a tenant. ( 18 ) I shall deal with the first point raised by Mr. Chakrabortti last. So far as the question of res judicata is concerned, in my opinion, the contention of Mr. Chakrabortti canot be accepted. In my opinion there cannot be any question of res judicata in the facts of this case. A different notification was challenged in an earlier petition. As would appear from the Minutes, this application was allowed only on the ground that the public notice of the said notification did not provide for reasonable time. In my opinion that cannot prevent the Government from issuing a fresh notification under S. 4 in compliance with the requirements of law. Mere fact that certain proceedings were quashed on the ground that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of law regarding the procedure thereof cannot be a ground for contending that no fresh action can be taken by the Government with due regard to the procedure as laid down by the law. Accordingly I reject this contention of Mr. Chakrabortti. ( 19 ) SO far as the third contention of Mr. Accordingly I reject this contention of Mr. Chakrabortti. ( 19 ) SO far as the third contention of Mr. Chakraborty is concerned, that is, the question of non-compliance with the provision of Schedule 16, Rule 20, in my opinion it would be premature at this stage to speculate as to whether there would be breach of any such condition of the said rules after such acquisition. Admittedly the existing structure is there. Under certain circumstances if an additional construction is sought to be made, this may or may not comply with the requirements of the Calcutta Municipal Act. But it cannot be said that the purpose of the acquisition is to make a construction which will amount to violation of such rules. It would be open for the then owner to alter or reconstruct the same with due regard to law, it could demolish the whole structure and construct the same in accordance with the relevant law. However, it would be a matter of pure speculation at this stage to hold that there would be a violation of such rules in future if the present acquisition stands. I make it clear that if there is any such violation, an aggrieved person's right to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings will not be in any way prejudiced by any order made in these proceedings. ( 20 ) ON the question of need of acquisition of the said premises it is now settled that if the purpose is really a public purpose, whether the said public purpose would be satisfied by the same premises or not is not for the court to go into; whether the acquisition of a particular premises would satisfy such public purpose or not is not for the court to decide or investigate. It may be that the premises were in occupation of the Board for such a long time as a tenant, as a result of the acquisition of the same by the State Government they will become the full owner and the new owner shall have mere rights to deal with such matter it is not for this Court to go into the same. ( 21 ) NOW I shall take up the first and the most important point invoiced in this case. The question is the interpretation of S. 4 (1) along with the provisions of S. 5a of the said Act. ( 21 ) NOW I shall take up the first and the most important point invoiced in this case. The question is the interpretation of S. 4 (1) along with the provisions of S. 5a of the said Act. The admitted position is that the public notice, if any with the meaning of S. 4 (1) has been given one month after publication in the Official Gazette of the Notification referred to in S. 4 (1) of the said Act. The question is whether that is valid particularly having regard to the executive instructions of the State referred to above. In my opinion the notification referred to in S. 5a refers to the notification which is to be published in the Calcutta Gazette under S. 4 (1) and not the public notice referred to in S. 4 (1 ). Section 4 (1) refers only to one notification, that is, notification in the Calcutta Gazette. Section 4 also mentions about giving a public notice of the substance of that notification. The pubic notice is not and cannot be a ? notification?. It is merely a notice which specifies the substance of the notification. The language in S 5a is clear. The period for making an objection is 30 days from the date of the notification. It is not 30 days from the date of giving public notice. It is very important to notice the language used in S. 5a. It has to be noticed that the language is 30 days from the date of the notification. Accordingly it must be held that that 30 days means 30 days from the date of the Gazette Notification referred to in S. 4. If it was the intention of the Legislature that the period of 30 days for filing objection was to be calculated from the date of giving public notice, then the Legislature would have used language expressly and suitably to that effect. Sub-section (1) of S. 4 has used two different words :- One is notification and the other is public notice of the substance of the notification. The language in S 5a is 30 days from the date of the notification. An absurd situation would be created if it is held that the 30 days would be from the date of the public notice. The language used in S 5a is notification. The language in S 5a is 30 days from the date of the notification. An absurd situation would be created if it is held that the 30 days would be from the date of the public notice. The language used in S 5a is notification. If the public notice is equated with notification there would be two periods for filing objections, one would be 30 days from the date of Gazette Notification and the other would be 30 days from the date of public notice. This result would follow if the public notice is also treated as a notification under S. 4. Certainly it was not the intention of the Legislature to create such an absurd and anomalous situation. Accordingly I am of the opinion that though there is no period provided specifically for giving public notice, such public notice is to be given along with or immediately after publication of the notification under S. 4 in the Gazette. Once it is held that the period of 30 days is to be calculated from the date of Gazette Notification under S. 4, it is clear that though no period has been specified in the Act for giving the public notice, such public notice must accompany the Official Gazette or it must immediately follow the Gazette Notification. If it is issued at a late stage, then the whole object of giving the public notice under the Act would be frustrated. The Gazette Notification cannot be presumed to be a notice to the public. Until and unless a public notice is given, the person concerned is not aware of his right and cannot effectively file and objection. The conclusion I have arrived at also receives support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, AIR 1973 SC 2361 . In that case the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the Official Gazette on the 17th August, 1961, but no notice as required by that section were published in the locality till November 1 and 9, 1961. The question for consideration was whether the notification issued under S. 4 of the Act was a valid notification. The respondent challenged the validity of the notification before the High Court of Mysore in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court quashed that notification. The question for consideration was whether the notification issued under S. 4 of the Act was a valid notification. The respondent challenged the validity of the notification before the High Court of Mysore in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court quashed that notification. Thereafter an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (i) (b) of the Constitution. After quoting Ss. 4 and 5a of the said Act the Supreme Court observed that S 5a empowers the interested person to object to the acquisition of any land but his objection should be filed within 30 days from the date of the issue of the notification. Any objection filed thereafter need not be considered as the same is filed after the time stipulated in S. 5a. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed as follows: ?under certain circumstances publications in the Official Gazette are presumed to be notices to all concerned. But in the case of a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the law has prescribed that in addition to the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette the Collector must also give publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality. Unless both these conditions are satisfied S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be said to have been complied. The publication of the notice in the locality is a mandatory requirement. It has an important purpose behind it. In the absence of such publication the interested person may not be able to file their objections about the acquisition proceedings and they will be deprived of the right of representation provided under S. 5a. It is a very valuable right. ? the Supreme Court thereafter referred to the earlier decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of H. K. Gangadharaiah and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors. and pointed out that it is only when the notification was published in the Official Gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice that a person interested in the property proposed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition. The Supreme Court pointed out that it was entirely in agreement with such decision. The Supreme Court pointed out that it was entirely in agreement with such decision. The Supreme Court held that the impugned notification had not complied with the requirements of law and that the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings taken. ( 22 ) IN the case of H. K. Gangadharaiah and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors. (supra) a preliminary gazette notification referred to in S. 4 (1) of the Act was published on the 9th January, 1958 and public notice was given on the 28th February, 1958, that is, nearly 50 days later. This was challenged before the High Court. The case came up before the Division Bench presided over by S. R. Dasgupta, C. J. In that case reference was made to rule 3 of the Rules framed by Mysore Government but the case was decided on the basis of interpretation of Ss. 4 and S. 5a of the said Act. In that case it was made clear that having regard to the scope and object of objections under S. 5a, it is only when notification is published in the Official Gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice, that a person interested in the property proposed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition. In that case it was made clear that publication in the Official Gazette is by itself insufficient notice to the person who is likely to be affected by the acquisition. It was further held that notice of the intended acquisition cannot statutorily be issued to him unless public notice is also caused to be given when the notification is published or immediately thereafter. I need not deal with in detail the said Mysore decision, particularly having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court has expressly state that it is only when the notification is published in the Official Gazette which is accompanied by or immediately followed by a public notice that a person interested in the property proposed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition. ( 23 ) IN my opinion, the argument sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondents is directly against the decision of the Supreme Court. ( 24 ) I am also unable to accept the contention of the respondent based on the executive instructions. ( 23 ) IN my opinion, the argument sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondents is directly against the decision of the Supreme Court. ( 24 ) I am also unable to accept the contention of the respondent based on the executive instructions. It is true that such Executive Instructions provide that the Collector shall issue notices on the persons fixing a date, the time and place for the hearing of objection and that such notices are to be issued to the persons to file objections within a period of thirty days after the date on which the substance of the notification is given in the locality. ( 25 ) HOWEVER, having regard to my interpretation of S. 4 and 5a, in my opinion, such Executive Instructions cannot save the matter. It is well settled that any executive direction or instruction cannot override any statutory provision. It can supplement but cannot supplant a statutory provision. In this case it is not even a statutory rule framed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is merely an executive instruction. When an Act says that the objection is to be filed within thirty days from the date of the notification (meaning a Gazette Notification), any directions to the contrary contained in any executive instructions cannot override such provision and cannot be set up as against such statutory provision. ( 26 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. In sub-rule (2) of Rule 19a of such Executive Instructions, it has been provided that on the publication of the notification in the Calcutta Gazette, the Collector without waiting for the receipt of a copy of the notification or other order from the Government, shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. This seems to be an effort to comply with the provisions of S. 4 and S. 5a of the Act. The expression ?without waiting? makes it clear that public notice is to be given by the Collector immediately. In this particular case the Collector should not have waited till he obtained orders from the Government. ( 27 ) I am unable to uphold the contention of Mr. Chatterjee regarding the interpretation of the Supreme Court and the Mysore decision. The expression ?without waiting? makes it clear that public notice is to be given by the Collector immediately. In this particular case the Collector should not have waited till he obtained orders from the Government. ( 27 ) I am unable to uphold the contention of Mr. Chatterjee regarding the interpretation of the Supreme Court and the Mysore decision. In my opinion, the said decisions did not proceed on the basis of the Mysore rules as such but proceeded on the basis of the general interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act itself. ( 28 ) IN this context I may also refer to the decision in the case of Devi Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 125. ( 29 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the first contention of Mr. G. Chakrabortti. Accordingly, I allows this application and make the Rule absolute. ( 30 ) THE impugned Notification bearing No. L. A. (II)/is-4/77 dated June 28, 1979 published in the Calcutta Gazette of 29th June, 1979, is set aside. ( 31 ) THERE will be a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents and each one of them to forbear from giving any effect to the said notification. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.