JUDGMENT S.B. Sanyal, J. These writ petitions have come up before us on a reference made on 17-7-1991, the terms whereof read as hereunder: "Whether the 'District Gazette' published by the Collectors of the districts, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the documents disclosed, can be treated as an 'Officia Gazette' within the meaning of section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act." 2. A doubt appears to have been entertained as to the correctness of a Bench decision of this Court in Arunodaya Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited v. The State of Bihar and others ( 1991 (1) P.L.J.R. 380 ) on this question. In the said case it has been held that notifications issued under sections 4, 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 only in the District Gazette do not fulfil the statutory requirement of publication in the 'Official Gazette of a State’ since the Official Gazette in the State of Bihar is the Bihar Gazette and not the District Gazette. 3. Before I embark to answer the question, the changes brought about in section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act have to be kept in view, as the definition of the word 'Official Gazette' in section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act has to be understood in the context the expression has been used. 4. Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act originally stood hereunder : 4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-(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, 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." (emphasis added by me). 5. Since acquisition and requisition fall under Entry 42 of concurrent list, the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, after obtaining the assent of the President, on 25th May, 1961 amended the said section by Bihar Act II of 1961, which is known as Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1960. 5. Since acquisition and requisition fall under Entry 42 of concurrent list, the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, after obtaining the assent of the President, on 25th May, 1961 amended the said section by Bihar Act II of 1961, which is known as Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1960. The Bihar Amendment of section 4 (1) reads as hereunder; "Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector 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 at the office of the Collector at the office - of the sub-divisional Officer, at the offices of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948), and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated; and the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land," (emphasis added by me) 6. Most of the States have also amended section 4 (1) by inserting after the words 'appropriate Government' and the 'Official Gazette' the words' or the District Collector' and 'or the District Gazette (Andhra Pradesh)’ or the Commissioner 'and' or in the Government periodical entitled 'Lok Rajya' or in a newspaper having circulation in the local area' (Maharastra) etc. 7. Most of the States have also amended section 4 (1) by inserting after the words 'appropriate Government' and the 'Official Gazette' the words' or the District Collector' and 'or the District Gazette (Andhra Pradesh)’ or the Commissioner 'and' or in the Government periodical entitled 'Lok Rajya' or in a newspaper having circulation in the local area' (Maharastra) etc. 7. Central Government on consideration of the recommendation of the Law Commission, Land Acquisition Review Committee, State Governments, Institutions and individuals in order to restructure the legislative frame work for acquisition of land, introduced the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 on 24th September, 1984, Section 4 (1) of the Central Amendment Act 1984 reads as follows :- "Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-(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 in 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 notification 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 the date of the publication of the notification." 8. As held in Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others (A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 761)”……...application of Article 254 of the Constitution of India is automatic to a situation where it is applicable and by the operation of the Article, the State Act stood repealed and the Central Act became applicable", even though subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law. Repugnancy may also arise when both laws operate in the same field and two cannot possibly stand together (See J. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and another, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 150). Repugnancy may also arise when both laws operate in the same field and two cannot possibly stand together (See J. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and another, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 150). In Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) it was further held that any proceeding pending on the date of the Amending Act, 1984, would be taken over from the stage they were when the Central Act came into operation and to be continued under the Central Act to their final stage, This view has been taken in the case of Arunoday Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti (supra) and in my opinion correctly. The referring Bench has also not doubted the correctness of this part of the said judgment. 9. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 2567/87, 3538/87 and 2857/87 section 4 notification under the Act was published in District Gazette under the signature of Additional Collector and Land Acquisition Officer on 16.4.84, 12.5.84 and 23.10.84 respectively. It may be thus observed that the notifications in C.W.J.C. 3657/87 and 3538/87 were prior to the Central Amendment dated 24.8.84, whereas in C.W.J.C. No. 2857/87 the notification has been published in the District Gazette after the enforcement of the Central Act. 10. From a comparison of section 4 (1) as it stood prior to the State Amendment and as it stood after the Central Amendment by Act 68 of 1984, a veritable change is clearly discernible. The changes, which are relevant for the purpose of the instant cases are (a) the satisfaction should be of the appropriate Government only that land in a locality is needed for a public purpose and a notification to that effect to be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers circulating in that locality; (b) the satisfaction of the Collector for the public need and its publication at the office of the Collector etc. has been excluded: (c) the Collector has been given the role after such publication in the Official Gazette to cause public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places of the said locality ....., it will, therefore, be observed that whereas under the State Amendment the Collector was authorised to publish the notification at his office and at the office of Sub-divisional Officer and at the office of smallest revenue administrative unit and copies of the notification on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land, under the Central Amendment the appropriate Government on being satisfied that the land is required for a public purpose, get the notification published in the 'Official Gazette'. 11. Section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act reads as follows : "In this Act and in all Central Acts and the regulation made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:- Official Gazette or Gazette shall mean the Gazette of India or the Official Gazette of the State." 13. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the publication of the Notification in the District Gazette under the signature of district authorities sub-served the requirement of section 4 (1) because the District Gazette is an Official Gazette since it is published under the authority of the State and at the instance of the State Government and, therefore, notifications are valid. He has further submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Arunodaya Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (supra) to the effect that the Bihar Gazette is the only Official Gazette of the State of Bihar has been incorrectly decided, In support of his submission he has drawn our attention to Annexures 19 and 20 brought on record through a supplementary affidavit dated 17.7.1991, one of which is a communication to all Departmental Heads and the District Magistrate and the other letter is a reply to a query made by Additional Collector, Purnea. The subject matter of the letter (Annexure-19) is decentralisation of Bihar Gazette. The subject matter of the letter (Annexure-19) is decentralisation of Bihar Gazette. It has been" stated that the decentralisation of the Bihar Gazette was for sometime under consideration of the State Government and the State Government has now resolved that from 1974 from every District a District Gazette should be published by the District Magistrate for and on behalf of the State Government. It should be published every fortnightly whose volume will be of 20 pages and the number of Gazette to be printed would be 200. The Gazette should primarily contain all notifications connected with land acquisition and matters of local importance and important local notifications. It further appears that the quality of printing would be controlled by Guljarbagh Press, and before the end of the financial year the District Magistrate should also send accounts of the income and expenditure to the Government Press, Guljarbagh. The object for decentralisation is stated to be for early publication of land acquisition notifications. Copies of this letter have been forwarded to the Superintendent, Government Printing and Stationary Guljarbagh, Superintendent, Secretariat Printing, Guljarbagh, Superintendent, Press and Forms, Gaya and Director, Printing and Stationary, Patna, for information and action. The letter dated 3rd December, 1974 (Annexure 20) is a reply to a query made by the Additional Collector, Motihari, whether the land acquisition notifications relating to central projects should also be made in the District Gazette. He was told that all land acquisition notifications irrespective of Central or State projects after decentralisation should be published in District Gazette and henceforth such proposals should not be forwarded to the State Government, but to District Collector for publication in the District Gazette. These two letters form part of a ‘Compenditum of Government Orders and Circulars' strictly for the use of the Department published by the Superintendent, Secretariat Press, Mr. Jha further submitted that since the District Gazette is published under the authority of the State, it cannot be held to be unofficial Gazette of the State. It has all the characteristics of being Official. The two annexures referred to above, according to learned counsel, clearly manifest that the land acquisition matters should be published at the District level to avoid delay in its printing. It has all the characteristics of being Official. The two annexures referred to above, according to learned counsel, clearly manifest that the land acquisition matters should be published at the District level to avoid delay in its printing. Learned counsel has also contended, since there being no statutory provision naming which publication will be made in which Gazette i.e., State or District, notifications are published in Gazette under executive instruction of the State. 13. In support of his submission Mr. Jha has drawn our attention to the meaning of the word 'Gazette' in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'The Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987, which says 'Gazette' generally means the Official Gazette published under the authority of the Government and is a publication of an official character. It is an official organ for the publication of Royal Proclamations, Government orders and regulations, Circular, Rules etc. Blake's Law Dictionary define the term 'Gazette' in relation to English Government, the Official Gazette of English Government called the 'London Gazette'. It is evidence of act of State and of everything done by the King in his political capacity. In short, learned counsel contended that the State Gazette and the District Gazette, both are official media printed under the authority of the State Government and bear the same presumption of genuineness as envisaged under section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, the publication of the notification in the District Gazette is in compliance of the requirement of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 14. Mr. Sahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the 'Official Gazette' of a State mean 'Bihar Gazette' and the learned Advocate General rightly conceded in the case of Arunodaya Sabkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (supra) that publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in District Gazette' is not in compliance with the provision of law. Learned Advocate General also on the opening day of the cases reiterated his earlier stand in these cases as well. 15. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 2857/87 seriously contested the submission of Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and supported the stand of the State. According to Mr. 15. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 2857/87 seriously contested the submission of Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and supported the stand of the State. According to Mr. Sinha the notification for acquisition of the land of his client published in the District Gazette on 18.10.84, under the signature of District Magistrate after arising into force of Central Act 68 of 1984 is wholly without jurisdiction and non est as the same is not the 'Official Gazette' legislation. In support of his submission Mr. Umesh Pd Singh learned counsel, drew our attention to the Bengal, Bihar and Orissa & Assam Laws Act, 1912 (Act 7 of 1912), an Act regarding application of the law in force in the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal to the Province of Bihar & Orissa and the Province of Assam. The said Act provided that the local Official Gazette of the Government of Bengal or the Chief Commissioners-ship of the Central Provinces be construed for the Province of Bihar & Orissa; Official Gazette (English or Vernacular, as the case may be) of the Government of Bihar and Orissa Section 5 of the said Act empowered the State Government by issuance of notification published in Official Gazette direct by what officer, authority power shall be exercisable and any such notification shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. Learned counsel contended that since then all notifications and orders to have the force of law are notified in the State Gazette. He submitted that like the Crown Office Act, 1877, which required that Act of Royal proclamation shall be valid in law if published as respects England in London Gazette, as respects Scotland in Edinburg Gazette as respects Ireland in Dublin Gazette, there is no such parallel Act in the State of Bihar beyond what has been provided for in section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act as to the meaning of the word 'Official Gazette'. Mr. Singh submitted that Annexures 19 and 20 are letters which have never been published any where for general information but compiled in a book form along with other executive instructions only for the departmental use. It says so and, therefore, it is not meant for public consumption. Mr. Singh submitted that Annexures 19 and 20 are letters which have never been published any where for general information but compiled in a book form along with other executive instructions only for the departmental use. It says so and, therefore, it is not meant for public consumption. Neither the compilation is made known to the public nor the compilation is made available to the public. Publication of all notifications, rules, regulations since the creation of the State being in State Gazette, it has become law by custom and usage within the meaning of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be modified and/or amended in the manner resorted to by the Finance Department. The two Annexures, therefore, cannot have the force of law to substitute 'District Gazette' for the 'State Gazette'. Learned counsel further submitted that the instructions (Annexures 19 and 20) were issued when the Bihar Amendment Act, 1960, was in force which conferred power on the Collector as well to be satisfied of the public need for acquisition of land by mere notification published at the office of the Collector and at the office of lower hierarchy. Therefore, publication of a notification in the District Gazette which is published from the office of the Collector was quite consistent with the statutory provisions then in force (State Amendment) and not repugnant to the said requirement. But, a sea change has been brought about by the Central Amending Act which is wholly repugnant to the State Act. From 24.9.84, it is only the appropriate Government, who can initiate a proceeding under its authority, and not the District Collector under his authority. The 'Official Gazette' of the appropriate Government is the State Gazette even though the 'Official Gazette' of the Collector may be the District Gazette, who is incharge of the District administration as he is also required to have a media for the publication of matters of general importance within his jurisdiction and locality for information to the public. 16-A. The real import of the reference to my mind, is whether the 'District Gazette' published by the Co Hector of the District is an 'Official Gazette' as defined under section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act, for the purpose of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 16-A. The real import of the reference to my mind, is whether the 'District Gazette' published by the Co Hector of the District is an 'Official Gazette' as defined under section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act, for the purpose of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The meaning of the word as defined under section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act cannot be understood dehors the provision of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 17. Gazette generally means the 'Official Gazette' published under the authority of the Government. It is a publication of official character containing Government notification and orders required for general information of the public. As held in 5 Term Report, 446 (Page 250 "(The King vs. Daniel Holt) the Gazette is an authoritative mean of proving all acts relating to the King and the State; otherwise the proof would run into endless niceties, as has been stated by the Attorney General". Under section 3(3) of the Crown Office Act 1877 royal proclamation in England is held to be valid in law if published as respects England in London Gazette, as respects Scotland in Edinburg Gazette, as respects Ireland in Dub1in Gazette. Our attention has not been drawn to any Act similar to the one in England beyond the statutory provision that genuineness of an Official Gazette or the Government Gazette has to be presumed, under section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. 18. In the case of M/s Leela Separators Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. The Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration and others (1981 Labour and Industrial Cases 1173) a question arose as to who is the "appropriate Government" with respect to the Union Territory of Delhi and whether the notification issued should have been published in the Delhi Gazette or in the Gazette of India. The Division Bench held that with respect to the Union Territory the appropriate Government is the Central Government and while referring to section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act in this connection their Lordships observed : "The other contention was that the notification should have been published in the Delhi Gazette and not the Gazette of India. This point is again devoid of substance. This point is again devoid of substance. Section 3(39), General Clauses Act, says: "Official Gazette" or Gazette" shall mean the Gazette of India or the Official Gazette of a State." Although, this definition does not indicate which notifications are to be published in which Gazette, common sense easily supplies the answer. Notifications issued by the Government of India should be published in the Gazette of India, and these issued by a State Government in the State Gazette. Each of Those-Gazettes is intended to record and give publicity to the act of the Government whose name it bears. The notification, here, was issued by the Central Government. Therefore, it was rightly published in the Gazette of India. It is of no consequence that the contents of the notifications pertained to the Union territory of Delhi. The author of the notification was the Central Government, and that is deciding factor. The ratio of this case is that Gazette is to be identified by the author of the notification. In the instant case the author of the notification is the District Magistrate and, therefore, the notification was published in District Gazette, but section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act required the author of the notification to be the State Government. The publication must, therefore, be in the State Gazette, which will be the 'Official Gazette' for the said purpose. 19. Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act is not decisive since it does not give high bound meaning to the terms and phrases generally occurring in the legislation and that is the reason why the definition of 'section' contains the words like 'unless there is anything repugnant to the subject and context'. The words and phrases have either a very narrow significance or a very wide significance according as the context and subject of the legislation requires the one or the other meaning to be attached to these words and phrases. Therefore, the meaning of the word 'Official Gazette' under the General Clauses Act has to be understood in the context the expression has been used. 20. The other approach is to take a look of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act together with section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, the meaning of the word 'Official Gazette' under the General Clauses Act has to be understood in the context the expression has been used. 20. The other approach is to take a look of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act together with section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act. The section opens up with the words 'appropriate Government is satisfied of a need for public purpose to acquire the land by publication of the notification therefore in 'official gazette' of a State.' It does not say Official gazette in a State. Official Gazette of a State has to be read with reference to the appropriate Government, namely, the Bihar State. It has been argued that the District Gazettes and Bihar Gazette are two distinct Gazette in circulation, even though both are published under the authority of the State. But, this, in my opinion, does not clinch the issue. Black's Law Dictionary, 1979 gives the meaning of the word of a term denoting that from which anything proceeds indicating origin source associated with or connected with. The word has been held equivalent to or belonging to, in possession of, manufactured by, residing at, from", Proposition 'in', on the other hand mean 'in possession' or 'invested with title'. There is a major difference between the two expressions 'Official Gazette' of a State and Official Gazette in the State inasmuch as the former will mean originating from the State. Source is the State and/or associated with the State, whereas the latter would mean invested with title of a State and/or the official gazette possessed by the State. The interpretation I have assigned to the word Official Gazette under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is harmonious to the context it has been set. Any other construction would be repugnant to the context. Therefore, the meaning of 'Official Gazette' in section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act would be State Gazette and not the Gazette of the District, which is printed and published from the office of the District Magistrate. This was permissible so long the State Amendment was in force and not after the enactment of Central Amendment. 21. Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act when seen independently of anything also leads to the same conclusion. This was permissible so long the State Amendment was in force and not after the enactment of Central Amendment. 21. Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act when seen independently of anything also leads to the same conclusion. It clearly identify and name the Gazette Government-wise-one relating to Central Government Gazette of India and the other relating to State 'Official Gazette of a State' which, in my opinion, mean State Gazette. 22. Coming to the submission of Mr. Singh that till Annexures 19 and 20, the letters, are published for general information they can have neither the force of law nor can vary the customary mode of publication of royal proclamation, namely, the State Gazette. According to the learned counsel in absence of publication of Annexore-19 the public at large is deprived of the change in the customary law that henceforth land acquisition notification will not be published in Bihar Gazette, but only in District Gazette. It is true that the Government decision by itself does not create any right or take away any liability, but it takes away a very valuable right of information and knowledge with respect to their properties situated in various districts. It is now clearly established that uptil 1974 land acquisition notifications under sections 4 and 6 were only published in the Bihar Gazette, but by Annexure-19 those notifications were directed to be published only in the District Gazette and not also in the State Gazette. Information about this change to the public at large whose right may be affected by issuance of a notification now to be published in the District Gazette only, is kept a secret and it is possible that citizen may lose their right to properties by being ignorant about the charge in the mode of publication hitherto followed. Annexure-19, even though purported to be mere decentralisation of the State Gazette but in effect it brought about a change in the publication of the land acquisition proceeding without knowledge to the public. Admittedly, there has been no publication of any sort of this letter. In the case of M/s Jayalakshmi Talkies vs. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Chirala (A.I.R. 1982 Andhra Pradesh 174) it was held that the expression 'publish' means made known to the public. Admittedly, there has been no publication of any sort of this letter. In the case of M/s Jayalakshmi Talkies vs. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Chirala (A.I.R. 1982 Andhra Pradesh 174) it was held that the expression 'publish' means made known to the public. The mere fact that the figures have been compiled and printed in a Book Form will not mean that they are published, more so for the reason the Book is not available to the public even by paying the price for the same. In the instant case, Annexures 19 and 20 have not been published nor notified in the State Gazette beyond being printed in a Compendium purely for departmental use and not available to the public for consultation. 23. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in support of the effect of non-publication of an instrument to bring about a change in the mode of publication of land acquisition notifications. 24 The case in Johnson v. Sargant & Sons (1918 King's Bench 101) is an authority for the proposition that till an order is published, it cannot be held to be effective and operative. 25. In case of Sri Dwarka Nath Tewari and others v. State of Bihar and others (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 249) a question arose as to the validity of Article 182 of the Bihar Education Code which provided withdrawal or withholding of recognition in case the managing committee misbehaved. It was held that the said Article has no greater sanction than an administrative order or rule, which cannot have' the force of law to deprive the managing committee with its rights in the properties of the school which is under its management. 26. In the case of Mahanth Daya Ram Das and Ors. v. The State of Bihar & ors. (1975 B.B.C.J. 667) a Bench of this Court was considering the requirement of publication in Official Gazette under section 15 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands Act, 1961. Their Lordships while considering the provision observed : “I think, it would be appropriate at this stage to observe that the provision of publication only in the Official Gazette may not in many cases mean real notice to the interested persons. Their Lordships while considering the provision observed : “I think, it would be appropriate at this stage to observe that the provision of publication only in the Official Gazette may not in many cases mean real notice to the interested persons. We are told that apart from the Bihar Gazette, District Gazettes are also published and in many cases the publication aforesaid is in the District Gazette." This decision has also been brought to our notice to show that the Official Gazette always meant the Bihar Gazette. 27. The case in Harla v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R 1951 S.C. 467) is an authority for the proposition that natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It is said that since the executive instruction was not promulgated or published it was ineffectual exercise. This case, however, related to infraction and followed by penal consequences of a law which was not promulgated and published. 28. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 722) it was held that :- "Where there is a statutory requirement as to the mode or form of publication and they are such that, in the circumstances, the Court holds to be mandatory, a failure to comply with those requirements might result in there being no effective order the contravention of which could be the subject of prosecution but where there is no such statutory requirement, it is necessary that it should be published in the usual form i.e., by publication within the country in such media as generally adopted to notify to all the persons concerned the making of rules." 29. In the case of B.K. Srinivasan and another etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka and others (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1059) while considering rules relating to publication of development plan Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Court observed: ........subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient if reasonable. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation proscribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, It will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. Our attention has also been drawn in this connection to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. P.J. Joseph (A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 296). 30. The cases cited and considered above lay down the law, that when certain orders are required to be obeyed or certain provisions are likely to touch the interest of general public, the latter has a right to have information about it by its publication in reasonable mode. 31. ‘Official Gazette' in the St ate of Bihar became synoymous to Bihar Gazette by its long use, since the very inception of the State and achieved the status of law by custom and usage within the meaning of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. It is for that reason when publication is required to be made in district Gazette a particular mention thereof is made in the statute itself (See Section 15 (3) of the Land Ceiling Act). 32. 'Official Gazette' referred to in section 4(1) could only be the State Gazette and amendment and/or modification thereof can never be made by issuance of executive instruction in the garb of decentralisation of the modality of the publication. It could have only been made by an act of legislation. Further executive instruction (Annexure 19) laying new mode of publication of the land acquisition notification was made at a time when the State Amendment was in operation which required that land acquisition notifications to be published in the office of the District Magistrate. This instruction had its natural death on and from the date the Central Amendment Act came into force and repealed the State Act being repugnant to the Central Act. This instruction had its natural death on and from the date the Central Amendment Act came into force and repealed the State Act being repugnant to the Central Act. The Central Act not only effaced the Slate Amendment, but also all instructions of the kind issued in furtherance of the State Amendment which run counter to the Central Amendment Act. Giving effect to the instruction issued in the year 1974 by inclusion of District Gazette in the scheme of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act will amount to amendment of the said provision which is impermissible. 33. The consequences of non-publication of the notifications as required by section 4(1) is well-established in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak (A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2361) and Giriwar Prasad Niuain Singh v. Dukhu Lal Das (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 90) 33. The decision in Arunodaya Grih Nirman Samiti (supra) has been correctly rendered on all the points. Learned Advocate General appears to have rightly conceded that the Official Gazette under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is Bihar Gazette and not the District Gazette. I also approve the decision, reported in A.I.R. 1950 Madras, 308 which has been relied upon in the case of Arunodaya Grih Nirman Samiti (supra). 35. In fine, I answer the reference by holding that the District Gazette published by the Collector of the District is not an Official Gazette within the meaning of section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act read with section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference is, accordingly, answered and the cases are sent back to the referring Bench. I may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases indvertantly or advertantly. 36. N. Pandey, J.-I have perused the judgment of my respected Brother Sanyal, J., but I most humbly regret not to agree with the reasonings and conclusions recorded by his lordship. 37. As my learned Brother has already mentioned the subject of reference before the Full Bench and other relevant materials under consideration, I do not propose to mention those facts herein again. 38. 37. As my learned Brother has already mentioned the subject of reference before the Full Bench and other relevant materials under consideration, I do not propose to mention those facts herein again. 38. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and during the course of hearing, the argument advanced, following questions emerge for our consideration: (i) whether the 'District Gazette' published by the Collector of the District, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and documents disclosed, can be treated as 'Official Gazette' within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act? (ii) whether the letters dated 25th July, 1974, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Finance, Government of Bihar, to all the departmental heads (Annexure 19) as also that dated 3rd December, 1974, by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar to the Additional Collector East Champaran, Motihari, (Annexure 20), both attached to the Supplementary Affidavit, indicating therein that the publication of Bihar Gazette has been decentralised and henceforth gazette can also be published in each of the districts called 'District Gazette', require publication in the official gazette? 39. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 'District Gazette' by all means is 'official gazette' since it is published under the authority of the State Government. In support of his contention, he has further submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of Arunodaya Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited v. The State of Bihar and others ( 1991 (1) PLJR 380 ) has been incorrectly decided to the effect that the Bihar Gazette is the only 'official gazette' of the State of Bihar and not the 'District Gazette' even published under the authority of the State Government. According to the learned counsel in the aforementioned case, it was stated on behalf of the State Government that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the notification has to be made in the 'official gazette' which could only be a 'Gazette of Bihar' and not the 'district gazette'. Therefore, their Lordships held that the 'Official Gazette' of the State of Bihar is only the 'Bihar Gazette' and not the district gazette' which is published by the Collector of the District. Therefore, their Lordships held that the 'Official Gazette' of the State of Bihar is only the 'Bihar Gazette' and not the district gazette' which is published by the Collector of the District. It is stated that for speedy and economical publication of the gazette, the matter was under consideration before the State Government to decentralise the publication of the Bihar Gazette. Therefore, by letter dated 25th July, 1974, as contained in Annexure 19, information to all the departmental heads was given to the effect that from 1.9.1974 in every district, a district gazette shall be published by the District Magistrate on behalf of the State Government. Time, place and procedure for publication was also enumerated in those letters. In other words, instead of publishing the State Gazette a t one place, that is Gulzarbagh Printing Press of the State, henceforth, all the notifications of the State Government, taking decision for acquisition of lands etc., shall be Published at district level under the supervision of the District Magistrate. It matters little whether it is published at the State headquarters or at the district headquarters, is always remains a publication of the State Government and such gazettes are called 'Official Gazette' under the meaning of section 4(1) of the Act. Mr. Jha further contended, in case it is held that the 'District Gazette' is not the 'Official Gazette' it would lead to anamolous situation affecting several thousands of notifications ineffective. Such decision will not be in the interest of general public. 40. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, as also Mr. P.K. Shahi appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the 'Official Gazette' of the State means Bihar Gazette and not the 'District Gazette'. According to them, publication of a notification, although it may be on behalf of the State Government, in the district gazette, does not fulfil the required publication as per the provision of section 4(1) of the Act. Mr. Singh further contended that the letters as contained in Annexures 19 and 20, communicating the decision of the State Government, that hence forth publication of Bihar Gazette shall be at district level and, therefore, it can be called as 'district gazette' were not notified for general information nor they were issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar. Mr. Singh further contended that the letters as contained in Annexures 19 and 20, communicating the decision of the State Government, that hence forth publication of Bihar Gazette shall be at district level and, therefore, it can be called as 'district gazette' were not notified for general information nor they were issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar. Mode of publication cannot be changed by issuance of such letters unless they are published in a gazette or notified by the State Government. 41. Before recording my conclusion on the subject under consideration, in my view, it would be relevant to trace out the procedure for publication of an Official Gazette. None of the parties before us could put their finger to any statutory rule or regulation, prescribing any particular mode for publication of an Official Gazette. Obviously, therefore, the notification of the State Government, communicating its decision are published in the Official Gazette on the basis of the procedure prescribed through executive instructions issued from time to time. 42. Now, I shall examine as to what is called a 'gazette'. Normally, gazette means publication of official proclamation and notifications under the authority of the Central Government of the State Government, as toe case may be. The decision of the Government and publication of a notification, conveying the decision of the State Government are required to be published in a gazette for general information. In the case of M/s Leela Separators Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. The Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration and others (1981 Labour and Industrial Cases 1173), it was held 'Official Gazette' or 'gazette' shall mean the gazette of India or the official gazette of the State. In order to trace out the meaning of 'gazette' reference can also be made to 'Law Lexicon' which says official publication under the authority of the State Government is a gazette. Gazette is an evidence of the act of the State Government publishing the official notification. As per Halsbury's Laws of England, 'gazette' is prima facie evidence of any proclamation, of regulation issued at any time by Her Majesty or by the Privy Councilor by or under the authority of the Government Department. As per General Clauses Act, section 3(39) 'Official Gazette' or 'gazette' shall mean the gazette of India or official gazette of a State. As per Halsbury's Laws of England, 'gazette' is prima facie evidence of any proclamation, of regulation issued at any time by Her Majesty or by the Privy Councilor by or under the authority of the Government Department. As per General Clauses Act, section 3(39) 'Official Gazette' or 'gazette' shall mean the gazette of India or official gazette of a State. In other words, notification of the State Government published in the 'State Gazette' or in the District Gazette' both are official gazettes and presumption of such publication under section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act would mean an evidence of the act of the State Government. 43. From a bare reference to the facts stated above, it is clear that a publication in State Gazette at district level, being called as 'District Gazette' is always under the dictate and authority of the State Government. Simply, because it is being published at the district headquarters, the authority of the State Government is not ousted. The status of such gazette always remains, an official gazette, as required under the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act. The contention of Mr. Singh that as per the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act and section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act, the notification for the purposes of acquisition of land can only be published at the headquarters has got no substance. I fail to appreciate how the right of the general public is affected, simply because the notification of the State Government is not published at one place rather it is published at several place by way of decentralisation. In the premises aforesaid, I hold that the 'official gazette' of the State Government includes the 'district gazette' provided it is published under the authority of the State Government. Mr. Singh also contended that any deviation in publication of the State Gazette by the State Government from the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act would be repugnant to the provisions of the Central Amendment Act, 1984. According to him, the State Amendment Act 11 of 1961 stood impliedly repealed on 24th September, 1984, on which date the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) came into force. Since the day of commencement of the aforesaid Act, the law for acquisition of the lands in the State of Bihar is the Central Act 68 of 1984. Since the day of commencement of the aforesaid Act, the law for acquisition of the lands in the State of Bihar is the Central Act 68 of 1984. In the background aforesaid it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Central Act, 1894, Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1960 (11 of 1961) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (Amended). Section 4(1) of the Central Act, 1894 reads thus:- "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-(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, 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." Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1960 (11 of 1961) runs as follows :- "(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector 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 at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-divisional officer, at the offices of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948), and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated; and the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land." After the amendment, Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 reads thud:- 4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-(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 in 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 notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of the notification)" Admittedly, the Bihar Amendment Act (Act 11 of 1961) was enforced after obtaining the assent of the President of India and it was published in the Bihar Gazette. From a comparative study of the aforementioned provisions, it is apparent that the acquisition of land is the concurrent subject. Therefore, the Parliament as also the Legislature of the State are competent to amend the laws relating to the subject. As I have indicated above, the State Amendment Act was published after obtaining the assent of President and at that time, the Central Act, 1894 was also occupying the field. As per old Act, 1894, the gazette was to be published by the appropriate government, whereas as per the State Amendment Act, it could be published by the appropriate Government or the Collector. In the Central Amendment Act, 1984, the following words have been added at proper places :- "or for a company"... "and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language" ... "the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification." As per Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India, if the law made by legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters mentioned in the concurrent list contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with respect to the matter, then, the law so made by the legislature of State shall prevail in the State provided it has received the assent of the President. From what has been added in section 4(1) of the Central Amendment Act, it cannot be said that the Bihar Act 11 of 1961 stands repealed. There is no dispute that as per the State Amendment Act, gazette was to be published by the State Government or the Collector. At the same time, under the Central Act, 1894, a gazette was to be published by the appropriate Government and the word 'Collector' was not there. In spite of that, since the year 1961, power to publish gazette was given to the Collector also as per the State Amendment. From a bare reference to section 4(1) of the old as well as the new Act, it is apparent that there has been no substantial change. Admittedly, there is no conflict between the Central Act, 1984 and the State Amendment Act, 1960. Similarly, there is no conflict in the Central Amendment Act as exists today and the State Amendment Act, 1961. Dealing with the similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others v. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1983 SC 1019 : 1983 (4) SCC 45 ) in paragraph 67 of the judgment (relevant part) held as follows : "... The proviso to Article 254(2) empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the 'same matter'. Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made. A State law would be repugnant to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws. Such repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in same field and the two cannot possibly stand together." (emphasis added) In paragraph 76, their Lordships have held as follows :- "...It follows that the two laws viz. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act and Paragraph 21 of the Control Order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, operate on two separate and distinct fields and both are capable of being obeyed. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act and Paragraph 21 of the Control Order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, operate on two separate and distinct fields and both are capable of being obeyed. There is no question of any clash between the two laws and the question of repugnancy does not come into play". Similar question arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Sri Kishan Bhageria and others ( AIR 1988 SC 329 ) where the Industrial Disputes Act and Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 tread the same field. It was observed in paragraph 12 as follows :- "It has to be borne in mind that Section 2A of the Act was amended to permit individual workman to ask for a reference in the case of individual dispute. This amendment was assented to by the President on 1st of December, 1965. The Rajasthan Act received the assent of the President on 14th of July, 1958. On 8th March, 1972, Chapter 6A including Section 28A was inserted in the Rajasthan Act. Therefore, the material provision of the Rajasthan Act is thus subsequent Act. Under Art, 254(2) of the Constitution, if there was any law by the State which had been reserved for the assent of the President and has received the assent of the President, the State law would prevail in that State even if there is an earlier law by the Parliament on a subject in the Concurrent list. It appears that both of these Acts tread the same field and if there was any conflict with each other, then Section 28A of Rajasthan Act would apply being a later law. We find, however, that there is no conflict. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Poonam Talkies, Dausa v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 1206/85) decided on 9.6.1986) so. That decision has been upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in writ Appeal No. 231/86. The Division Bench of the High Court in the instant appeal relying on the said decision held that there was no scope for any repugnancy. It appears to us that these two Acts do not tread the same field. That decision has been upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in writ Appeal No. 231/86. The Division Bench of the High Court in the instant appeal relying on the said decision held that there was no scope for any repugnancy. It appears to us that these two Acts do not tread the same field. Both these Acts deal with the rights of the workman or employee to get redressal and damages in case of dismissal or discharge, but there is no repugnancy because there is no conflict between these two Acts, in pith and substance. There is no inconsistency between these two Acts. These two 'Acts, in our opinion, are supplemental to each other." In support of the aforesaid conclusion, their Lordships also placed reliance over a judgment reported in AIR 1983 SC 1019 (supra) and in paragraph 14 held as follows :- "...Therefore, in order to raise a question of repugnancy, two conditions must be fulfilled. The State law and the Union law must operate on the same field and one must be repugnant or inconsistent with the other. These are two conditions which are required to be fulfilled. These are cumulative conditions. Therefore these laws must tread on the same field and these must be repugnant or inconsistent with each other. In our opinion, in this case there is a good deal of justification to hold that these laws, the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rajasthan Act tread on the same field and both laws deal with the rights of dismissed workman or employee. But these two laws are not inconsistent or repugnant to each other. The basic test of repugnancy is that if one prevails other cannot prevail..." Since no notification or amendment contrary to the provisions of section 4(1) of the Central Amendment Act has been issued by the State Government, it is not necessary to refer to the authorities relied upon by the parties in detail. 45. I, therefore, hold that under the Central Amendment Act, 1984, nothing has been added or substituted which makes the State Act (11 of 1961) repugnant to the Central Act. The question of repugnancy does not arise because there is no conflict between these two Acts in pith and substance. 45. I, therefore, hold that under the Central Amendment Act, 1984, nothing has been added or substituted which makes the State Act (11 of 1961) repugnant to the Central Act. The question of repugnancy does not arise because there is no conflict between these two Acts in pith and substance. I fail to understand when the State Amendment Act, 1961 was not repugnant to the Central Act, 1894 how it is repugnant to the new Central Act. If both the Acts could tread the same field before the amendment of the Central Act, it can tread the same field even after amendment. In the premises aforesaid, the argument of the respondents that after the amendment of the Central Act, the State Amendment Act stands repealed has to be rejected. 46. Coming to the last submission of Mr. Singh that until Annexures 19 and 20, the letters, are notified in the name of the Governor of Bihar as per Article 166 of the Constitution and published for general information, they can have neither force of law nor can they change the mode of publication of the State gazette. It is also stated that the decision of the Government that notification, affecting the right of general public would be published in the district gazette has been kept secret. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission. Even the plain reading of Annexure 19 conveys that the' State Gazette' has been decentralised. If such change of publication was not brought to the notice of general public, it does not affect their valuable right. It is also submitted that such types of orders which touch the interest of general public, require publication in the State gazette. Since there has been no publication, entire action of the State Government for publication of the official gazette after the amendment of the Central Act becomes illegal. In support of his contention Mr. Singh placed reliance over the following authorities viz. Sri Dwarka Nath Tewari and others v. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1959 SC 249 ), Mahanth Daya Ram Das and ors. v. The State of Bihar and ors. ( 1975 BBCJ 667 ), B. K. Srinivasan add another etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka and others ( AIR 1987 SC 1059 ) and State of Kerala v. P.J. Joseph ( AIR 1958 SC 296 ). 47. v. The State of Bihar and ors. ( 1975 BBCJ 667 ), B. K. Srinivasan add another etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka and others ( AIR 1987 SC 1059 ) and State of Kerala v. P.J. Joseph ( AIR 1958 SC 296 ). 47. There cannot be any dispute that the decision of the State Government, affecting the right of the general public has to be issued in the name of the Governor and published in the State Gazette so that it may be known to all. The question thus arises as to what was the object behind issuance of these letters. From the contents of these letters, there cannot be any ambiguity that they were issued to all the departmental heads, for making certain internal arrangements so that the notification of the State Government is published in a gazette at a convenient place. The object behind issuing such letters was to decentralise the publication of the official gazette. These letters are not for general information. What is required to be published is the gazette. It may be published either at the State level or at the district leve1. Annexures 19 and 20 cannot be termed as subordinate legislation nor a notification, affecting the right of the general public. In effect, these letters only convey that a gazette publication shall be made under the authority of the State Government but for the purpose of convenience, at different places. Since I have just indicated that these letters cannot be termed as subordinate legislation or a notification of the State Government it is not necessary to examine the decisions relied upon by Mr. Singh. In support of my stand, as indicated above that non-publication of the letters as contained in Annexures 19 and 20 cannot make them ineffective and inoperative, reliance can be placed over the Case of R. Chitralekha and anr. v. State of Mysore and others ( AIR 1964 SC 1823 ). Relevant Passage in paragraph 4 of this report is quoted as below ;- "(4) x x x x Ex facie this letter shows that it was a communication of the order issued by the Government under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, Education Department. v. State of Mysore and others ( AIR 1964 SC 1823 ). Relevant Passage in paragraph 4 of this report is quoted as below ;- "(4) x x x x Ex facie this letter shows that it was a communication of the order issued by the Government under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, Education Department. Under Art. 166 of the Constitution all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of Governor and that orders made in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor and the validity of an order which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor." If the conditions laid down in this Article are complied with, the order cannot be called in question on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. It is contended as the order in question was not issued in the name of the Governor the order was void and no interviews could be held pursuant to that order. The law on the subject is well settled. In Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangurkar v. State of Bombay, 1952 SCR 612 at p. 625 : ( AIR 1952 SC 181 at pp. 185-186). Das, J. as he then was, observed: "Strict compliance with the requirements of Article 166 gives an immunity to the order in that it cannot be challenged on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. If, therefore, the requirements of that Article are not complied with, the resulting immunity cannot be claimed by the State. This, however, does not vitiate the order itself...... Article 166 directs all executive action to be expressed and authenticated in the manner therein laid down but an omission to comply with those provisions does not render the executive action a nullity. Therefore, all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate' Government must take a decision as to whether the detention order should be confirmed or not under section 11 (1)." x x x x x" 48. Therefore, all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate' Government must take a decision as to whether the detention order should be confirmed or not under section 11 (1)." x x x x x" 48. In the circumstances mentioned above, even if the letters as contained in Annexures 19 and 20 were not issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar or published in the gazette, the consequent executive actions of the State cannot he held a nullity. I have already noticed that the letter contained in Annexure 19 conveying the decision of the State Government to publish the official gazettes at district level was issued on 25th July, 1975 whereas the Central Amendment came into force with effect from 24th September, 1984. If the stand of the State Government as also that of the private respondents is accepted, all the notifications, issued after the commencement of the Central Amendment Act, 1984, will not only be nullity but it would also render a large number of acquisitions and proceedings taken so far without jurisdiction. 49. In substance, I hold that there is no conflict under the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and direction issued under Annexures 19 and 20. 50. In the result, I answer the reference by holding that the 'District Gazette' published under the authority of the State Government at the district level is also an 'official gazette' within the meaning of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act. While answering the reference as aforesaid, I direct let the records of the cases be sent before the Bench which has referred the case before a larger Bench. 51. S.N. Jha, J.-I have had the advantage of going through the proposed judgments prepared by my learned Brethven. I regret, I could not persuade myself to agree with the reasonings and the conclusions of Brother Sanyal, J., for whom I have high respect. On the other hand, I find myself in respectful agreement with the conclusions of Brother Pandey, J. However, having regard to the significance of the issue arising for decision and also in defence to the long arguments addressed a t the Bar on the otherwise "simple looking" question, I think it proper to record my own views also on the subject. 52. 52. The question whether 'District Gazette' can be treated as an 'Official Gazette' within the meaning of section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act has, broadly speaking, two aspects, (i) whether in the context of the Land Acquisition Act (to be referred to as 'the Act') it can be treated as official gazette and (ii) whether, de hors the context, the document or the publication nomenclated as 'District Gazette' fulfils the basic ingredients of a gazette or official gazette so as to be described as such. The General Clauses Act, 1897 defines the term 'gazette' or 'official gazette' in the following terms :- "In this Act, and in all Central Acts or Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. xx xx xx (39) "Official Gazette" or "Gazette" shall mean the Gazette, of India or the official gazette of a State". (emphasis supplied)." A plain reading of the aforesaid definition makes it clear that the terms 'Gazette' or 'Official Gazette' mean one and the same thing, like synonyms, and that ordinary meaning of the term is the Gazette of India, in the case of Central Government, and the Gazette of the State, in the case of the State Governments, unless the context in which the term is used or occurs gives a different meaning to it. In the instant case the context is the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, if the provisions of the Act provide a fairly similar meaning to the term, that meaning, and not the ordinary meaning explicitly given to it under clause (39), has to be preferred. This necessarily and straightway takes us to the provisions of section 4 of the Act. In other words, if the provisions of the Act provide a fairly similar meaning to the term, that meaning, and not the ordinary meaning explicitly given to it under clause (39), has to be preferred. This necessarily and straightway takes us to the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 4, as it originally stood, was framed in these words ;- “Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the 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 notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality." The subject 'Acquisition and Requisitioning of property' falling in the concurrent list vide Entry 42 of List III of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the State Government made extensive amendments in the Act, in relation to the State of Bihar, by Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act 1960 (11 of 1961). It is an admitted position that the aforesaid amendment was made after receiving the assent of the President as required under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. By the said amendment sub-section (1) of section 4 was substituted. Sub-section (1) as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act, omitting the explanation, runs thus :- "Whenever it appears to be appropriate Government or the Collector that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-divisional Officer at the offices of the smallest Revenue Administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 Bihar Act VII of 1948) and at some conspicuous places in village at which the land is situated, and the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land." (Portions underlined inserted or substituted by the Bihar Amendment). It would, thus, appear that the material changes brought forth by the said Amendment in sub-section (1) are (a) satisfaction in regard to need for acquisition may be of Collector also, apart from the State Government, (b) the prescribed mode of publication of the notification, in lieu of official gazette as provided under the Central Act, is publication at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-divisional Officer and so on, such publication at different places, as mentioned therein, not being alternative to each other and (c) instead of the Collector giving public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality, as required under the Central Act, Bihar Amendment enjoins upon the Collector to serve copies of the notification on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. 53. Various provisions of the Act were amended in 1984 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) enacted by the Parliament, which came into force with effect from 24th September, 1984. Subsection (1) of section 4 as amended by the aforesaid Central Act now reads as follows :- "Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the 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 in 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 notification 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 notification," (Portions underlined inserted by Act 68 of 1984). It would, thus, appear that the basic features of the Central Amendments made in 1984 are (a) acquisition may be also for a company, apart from any public purpose and (b) in addition to publication in the gazette, the notification is also required to be published in two daily newspapers of the locality. It would, thus, appear that the basic features of the Central Amendments made in 1984 are (a) acquisition may be also for a company, apart from any public purpose and (b) in addition to publication in the gazette, the notification is also required to be published in two daily newspapers of the locality. It is apparent, therefore, that as regards the mode of publications, the change effected by the Bihar Amendment, namely, publication at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-divisional Officer and so on, is not disturbed or rendered inoperative, since the publication in the two daily newspapers of the locality, as provided by the Central Amendment, is in addition to the gazette notification and not a substitute for it. In other words, the Bihar Amendment substituting the mode of publication of the notification, from publication in the 'official gazette' to publication at the office of the Collector remains intact. It would, thus, appear that while interpreting the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, as regards the mode of publication, the term "official gazette" has to be read down not only by virtue of the Bihar Amendment but also in view of the opening sentence of section 3 of the General Clauses Act (quoted with emphasis above). We have noticed above that the meaning assigned to the different words and terms under different clauses including clause (39), has to be accepted only if there is nothing repugnant in the context. Since in the context of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the Bihar Amendment, 'official gazette' has been assigned a particular meaning, namely, publication at the office of Collector, by virtue of the aforesaid express provisions of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, that meaning has to be preferred and not the meaning assigned to it under clause (39). 54. The submission of Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the private respondents in these cases, however, is that the Central Amendment made in 1984 supersedes or repeals the Bihar Amendment and in the absence of any corresponding State amendment prescribing the mode of publication of the notification in any other document except the official gazette of the State, which according to learned counsel, is the Bihar Gazette, publication of any notification under section 4 (1) in the district gazette cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The question, that, therefore, next arises for consideration is whether or not Central Amendment by the Act 68 of 1984 has superseded or effaced the Bihar Amendment. Articles 254 of the Constitution having a direct bearing on the question may be quoted in extenso :- "Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.-(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then subject to the provisions of Clause (2) the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State or as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State, shall to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State." (emphasis added) In order to appreciate the true import of Article 254, certain broad ideas, which are by now well settled, have to be borne in mind. There is nothing to prevent the State Legislature to legislate with respect to a concurrent subject merely because there is a Union Law relating to the same subject. The State Law does not become void as soon as the Parliament legislates with respect to the same subject. Clause (2) is attracted only if the State law is 'repugnant' to the Central Act, which means that the two cannot possibly stand together. The State Law does not become void as soon as the Parliament legislates with respect to the same subject. Clause (2) is attracted only if the State law is 'repugnant' to the Central Act, which means that the two cannot possibly stand together. It is also well settled that when a State law is repugnant to Central law within the meaning of the aforesaid clause what becomes void is not the entire Act but only in so far as it is repugnant to the ,Central Act, subject to the doctrine of severability. The doctrine of 'severability' was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of R.M.D. Chamuru Corgsala v. Union of India (AIR 1957 Supreme Court, 628), where it was said:- "But where the legislation falls in part within the area allotted to it and in part outside it, it is undoubtedly void as to the latter, but does it on that account become necessarily void in its entirety? The answer to this question must depend on whether whas is valid could be separated from what is invalid, and that is a question which has to be decided by the Court on a consideration of the provisions of the Act." In para 22 of the judgment, while laying down the tests to determine severability of the different provisions or part of the provision, it was, inter alia, said :- "If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from one another, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety. On the other hand, if they are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid what remains is in itself a complete code independent of the rest then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest has become unenforceable." In M/s. R.K.D.C. (Mysore) Private Limited v. State of Mysore (AIR 1962 Supreme Court, 594) it was said in paragraph 16 of the judgment :- "The inconsistency would operate on that portion of the Mysore Act, which became repugnant to Section 4 and 5 of the Central Act to prohibition of prize competition and licensing of prize competitions e.g. Section 8 of the Mysore Act and consequently that portion of Section 12 (1) (b) which deals with taxes in respect of prize competitions for which a licence has been obtained under Section 8 might be said to have become void and not the rest. Therefore, by the omission of the words "for which a licence had been obtained", under Section 8 the rest of the clause would be valid." The expression 'void' has been interpreted by this court in the case of Shrikant Lal v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 Patna, 496) in the sense of being inoperative. This Court took the view that Article 254 (1) does not take away the power of State Legislature to legislate with respect to a subject in the Concurrent List, but simply invalids the law in so far as it is repugnant to Central law relating to the same 'subject' or 'matter'. Hence, when the repugnancy arises, the State law remains in abeyance but if at any subsequent time the repugnancy is removed for any reason, whether by repeal of the Central Act or on receipt of the President's assent, the State law is revived. 55. Hence, when the repugnancy arises, the State law remains in abeyance but if at any subsequent time the repugnancy is removed for any reason, whether by repeal of the Central Act or on receipt of the President's assent, the State law is revived. 55. While dealing with the question of repugnancy in the context of Article 254 of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 Supreme Court, 648) the following tests were laid down :- “Repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles :- (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field." Again in the case of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 898) another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court summarised the law in the following words : "On a careful consideration, therefore, of the authorities referred to above, the following propositions emerge: 1. That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, so that they cannot stal1d together or operate in the same field. 2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes. 3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results. 4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field." There are several other decisions of the Supreme Court, some of them have been noticed in the judgment of Brother Pandey, and I do not wish to multiply the citations. 56. 56. Applying the aforesaid tests and the principles it has now to be seen whether the Bihar Amendment Act (Act XI of 1961) and the Central Amendment (Act 68 of 1984) are repugnant to each other inasmuch as the two enactments are so irreconcilable that they cannot stand together or whether they operate in the same field and there is possibility of both the statutes coming into collision with each other. The extent of the Bihar Amendment and the subsequent Central Amendment has been indicated above. A bare comparative look of the provisions of sub-section (1), as it originally stood prior to the Bihar Amendment, as it stands after the Bihar Amendment and as it stands after the Central Amendment would make it clear that the Bihar Amendment had effected a basic change in the mode of publication of the notification, providing for such publication at the office of the Collector, at the office of the Sub-divisional Officer and so on, in place of publication in the 'official gazette' as provided in the Central Act. What the Central Amendment has done is only to provide an additional mode of publication in the two daily newspapers of the locality, apart from publication in the official gazette. Now, sub-section (1), as substituted by the Bihar amendment, will be read as subject to the Central amendment providing for an additional mode of publication, without creating any 'repugnancy' i.e. inconsistency or conflict between the two. In other words, the made of publication of the notification at the office of the Collector and so on, will be deemed to be a substitute for publication in the official gazette as understood in the ordinary sense to mean State gazette. Thus, the Central Amendment of 1984 providing for additional mode of publication in the two daily newspapers can stand together with the publication of the notification at the office of the Collector. It would, thus, appear that notwithstanding the Central Amendment of 1984, the Bihar Amendment continues to hold the field and it cannot be said that the two provisions providing the mode of publication of the notifications are mutually inconsistent to the extent that they are irreconcilable to each other and they cannot stand together. In my considered opinion, therefore, there is no repugnancy between the Central Amendment of sub-section (1) of section 4 and the Bihar Amendment of 1961. In my considered opinion, therefore, there is no repugnancy between the Central Amendment of sub-section (1) of section 4 and the Bihar Amendment of 1961. It would, accordingly, follow that if the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act has been published by the Collector in the document, which is known as District gazette, it cannot be said to be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, notwithstanding the amendment of 1984. 57. Another submission, which has been made highlighting the Central Amendment of 1984, is that after the Central Amendment it is only the State Government being the appropriate Government which can issue notification and not the Collector as provided by the Bihar Amendment. This argument also, for the reasons already stated above, is devoid - of any substance. Proviso to clause (2) of Article 254, no doubt, empowers the Parliament to enact at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. However, merely because few words have been added in sub-section (1) of section 4, it cannot be said that the whole of sub-section has been amended or varied or repealed. We have already noticed above the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi (supra) that there is no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes. The Central Amendment of 1984 operates in a different area and deals with a different subject or matter, namely, the mode of publication and it does not further deal with the question as to which is the competent authority on whose satisfaction a notification for acquisition of land for any public purpose can be issued. The Central Amendment as it stood originally and as it stands even now after the amendment of 1984, empower" only the State Government being the appropriate Government to issue notification in that regard. The Bihar Amendment of 1961 empowering the Collector also to issue notification on the basis of his satisfaction does not stand amended or varied and, therefore, there is no question of repeal of that part of the Bihar Amendment. The Bihar Amendment of 1961 empowering the Collector also to issue notification on the basis of his satisfaction does not stand amended or varied and, therefore, there is no question of repeal of that part of the Bihar Amendment. In my opinion, sub-section (1) of section 4 consists of several parts, the first part deals with the satisfaction of the competent authority in regard to the need of the land for any public purpose, the second part deals with the mode of publication and the third part deals with giving notice of the notification or substance of the notification. Those parts are different 'subjects' or 'matters' severable from each other and, therefore, if some amendment has been made adding something to one part of the provision, it cannot be said that the other part(s) is also necessarily affected by reason of any such addition. According to me, it is a case of 'addition' within the meaning of the proviso to Article 254 (2), and not a case of repeal, so far as sub-section (1) of section 4 is concerned. We have already seen above that the amendment made by the Central Act adding few words in regard to the mode of publication does not amount to repeal of even that part of the Bihar Amendment since they are not mutually inconsistent or irreconcilable and it is not necessary to deal with that aspect again. In my opinion, therefore, notwithstanding the Central Amendment of 1984, the Collector is competent to issue notification on the basis of his satisfaction that a particular land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Now, by virtue of the Central Amendment this can be done for a company also. In my considered opinion, therefore, the publication of notification under sub-section (1) at the office of the Collector in the document known or described as 'District Gazette' is sufficient compliance of the provisions of section (1) and having regard to the language of section 4 (1) and also having regard to the language of section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act i.e. in the context of Land Acquisition Act, it has to be treated as an official gazette or Gazette within the meaning of section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act. 58. 58. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the document described as "District Gazette" can be called an official gazette, do hors the context i.e. the Land Acquisition Act. In this connection it has to be stated at the very outset that no statute or law was brought to our notice under which the gazettes are published, unlike in England where there is an Act known as the Crown Office Act, 1877 to that effect. Brother Sanyal has dealt with this aspect. It is more or less an admitted position that the Gazettes, whether Gazette of India or the Gazettes of different States, are not published under the authority of any statute and they are pub1ished under the authority of the executive power of the State. On behalf of the petitioners two documents marked as Annexures 19 and 20 have been brought on record. Brother Sanyal has dealt with these two documents in some detail but did not place any reliance on them for broadly two reasons, namely, their non-publication in the gazette and secondly, being in conflict with the custom and usage within the meaning of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. At the outset it may be pointed out that the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that, as would appear from the memo portion of the Annexure 19, copies had been sent to the Government Printing Press at Gulzarbagh, Patna, for its publication in the gazette. According to learned counsel, the presumption that will arise therefrom is that it must have been published. It was the duty of the State to bring the relevant materials or to come out with a categorical stand on this question but as I would indicate later in this judgment, the stand of the State has been rather queer and unintelligible, at least to me. Brother Pandey has discussed the question of legal effect of Annexure 19 and I, being in agreement with his views do not want to repeat the same. I am satisfied that Annexure 19 is a Government order, while Annexure-20 is just a letter clarifying some doubts as regards the scope of Annexure 19 and was not required to be published in the gazette. Even assuming that Annexures 19 was not published in official gazette, it is difficult to accept the contention that it has got no value attached to it. Even assuming that Annexures 19 was not published in official gazette, it is difficult to accept the contention that it has got no value attached to it. It is not in dispute that the State Government had taken a policy decision to decentralise the publication of the Gazette and to provide for publication of certain categories of notifications, including notifications under the Land Acquisition Act in a gazette to be 'published by the Collector of the District to be called District Gazette. Learned counsel for the parties produced before us sample copies of the Bihar Gazette and the District Gazettes (of Patna and some other districts). A bare glance at the two gazettes showed that there is absolutely no distinction between the two except that the District Gazette is published at the district level but both are said to be publications of the State Government. The term 'Gazette' has no fixed meaning. It has been defined in various dictionaries and law lexicons in more or less an identical manner. Primarily, it is a publication of an official character, published under the authority of the Government, which contains Government notifications, list of public appointments and honours, legal notices etc., which have a presumption of genuineness. On the basis of the aforesaid definition/meaning given to the term 'Gazette' it is difficult to discern or find out any necessary ingredient lacking in the document known as District Gazette on the basis of which it can be said that it is not official in character. Even the private respondents in the instant cases have not doubted the genuineness of the official character of the district gazette. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh had, in fact, conceded that for administrative reasons it may be permissible to the State Government to publish its own gazette i.e. the Bihar Gazette at different places. Taking this argument to its original end, it may be said that on the own stand of the respondents, if the 'Bihar Gazette' can be published at every district headquarters, then whether it would be legal, just and proper to hold that simply because the document is described as 'District Gazette' and not 'Bihar Gazette' it does not amount to an official gazette of the State. Such an interpretation would not only be, to say the least, hyper technical but also most unrealistic. Merely giving a particular name is not conclusive. Such an interpretation would not only be, to say the least, hyper technical but also most unrealistic. Merely giving a particular name is not conclusive. Section 81 of the Evidence Act, which creates presumption of genuineness of certain document known as Gazette reads, so far as its relevant part is concerned, like this :- "The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be in official gazette or the Government gazette..." Thus, for the purpose of testing the legal character of the document called as 'Gazette' the law creates a presumption of genuineness even if it only purports to be an official gazette or a Government gazette. If the district gazette is not 'officia1 gazette' then whether it would be proper to call it as 'unofficial gazette', Nobody can take this plea that the district gazettes are 'unofficial' in character; like the private diaries of the concerned Collectors meant for their own personal or private consumption. They are modes of communications and such a mode has been prescribed by the aforesaid Government order dated 25th July, 1974 (Annexure-19) intended not only to de-centralise the work of publication of different notifications and to reduce the time in that regard but also intended to be an easier mode of communication to the persons concerned. 59. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, during the course of his submission, although conceded that there is no statute under which gazettes are published, referred to Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and Assam Laws Act, 1912 (Act 7 of 1912) in older to show that official gazette, as regards State of Bihar, is the gazette of the Government of Bihar. In this connection he drew our attention to Schedule D of the aforesaid Act. Reference to the aforesaid Act, in my opinion, is entirely misplaced. The aforesaid Act was enacted to make certain provisions regarding the application of the laws, then in force, in the Presidency of Fort William of Bengal, the provinces of Bihar, Orissa and Assam. The aforesaid Act is like an 'Interpretation Act' and was enacted when the aforementioned Provinces were carved out and came into existence from the erstwhile territories, which formally comprised the territory of Bengal as one administrative unit. The aforesaid Act is like an 'Interpretation Act' and was enacted when the aforementioned Provinces were carved out and came into existence from the erstwhile territories, which formally comprised the territory of Bengal as one administrative unit. Section 3 of the said Act provides all enactments made by any authority and all notifications, orders, rules etc., when were in force immediately before the commencement of the said Act in the territory mentioned in Schedule A, Schedule B or Schedule C (mentioning different districts comprising the aforesaid provinces) shall "in their application to that territory be construed as if the reference therein to the authorities, territory, or Gazettes mentioned in column 1 of Schedule D were references to the authorities, territory or Gazettes respectively mentioned or referred to opposite thereto in Column 2 of that Schedule." Accordingly, it is said, in Schedule D, vide item no. 17, that the local official gazette (English or vernacular) as the case may be) of the Government of Bengal or the chief Commissionership of Central Provinces shall in its application to the territory of the Bihar be known as "the local official gazette" (English or vernacular as the ease may be) of the Government of Bihar. By the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order 1937 the expression 'local official gazette' was changed into 'official gazette'. Thus, the aforesaid Act of 1912 read with the Adaptation of Indian Laws Order 1937 are only in the nature of interpretation clauses and do not lead us anywhere so far as the instant matter is concerned. 60. Brother Sanyal, has held that the publication of notifications rules, regulations since the creation or the State being in State Gazette; it has become law by custom and usage within the meaning of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be modified by an executive order Annexure-19. With due respect, I have some reservations so far as application of the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution is concerned. The underlying idea behind the provisions as contained in Article 13 is to provide an overriding status to the provisions as contained in part III of the Constitution dealing with the fundamental right. With due respect, I have some reservations so far as application of the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution is concerned. The underlying idea behind the provisions as contained in Article 13 is to provide an overriding status to the provisions as contained in part III of the Constitution dealing with the fundamental right. It says that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of that part shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void and that the State shall not make any law, which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by that and any law made in contravention be void. It is in this context that it has been said that the 'custom' or 'usage' will also be included within the term law'. Publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act may affect the right of a citizen. But I fail to understand as to how the Government decision or policy to decentralise the publication of gazette and to publish it district-wise in respect of some specified items per se can be said to contravene any such right. Neither Annexure-19, which is only a communication of the Government order in regard to printing of District gazette nor the consequential printing of the district gazette by itself contravenes the fundamental rights of a citizen. Therefore, even if it is accepted that the publication of notification in the district gazette amounted to departure from some established custom or usage, it cannot be said that such a departure by itself or per se contravene any provision of part III of the Constitution or affects the fundamental rights of a citizen so as to attract the provisions of Article 13. It may be true, as observed by Brother Sanyal, that publication of notifications, Rules etc. in State Gazette being the customary mode of publication, by lapse of time it had acquired a sanctity of its own, although without any statutory force. Whatever, could be said in regard to the possible effect of any such departure from this established customary made of publication in 1974, such a grievance or submission has become state after lapse of 17 years by now. Whatever, could be said in regard to the possible effect of any such departure from this established customary made of publication in 1974, such a grievance or submission has become state after lapse of 17 years by now. The impugned notifications in these cases were issued in 1984 and the policy of the State by then had already been known that the notification of particular kind, including those under the Land Acquisition Act, were being published in District Gazettes. Therefore, even if publication of such a notification in the official gazette prior to 1974 might have had some value attached to it, being the customary mode of publication, it is difficult to hold on the basis of such a slippery ground, after lapse of so much time, that any right of the persons concerned had been affected merely by reason of publication of the notification in the district gazette in 1984. The decisions cited on behalf of the respondents relate to cases where the rights of the person concerned were taken away or affected. Here Annexure 19 per se does not take away or affect the rights of any person whatsoever. 61. During course of hearing of this case before the Full Bench, both the Advocate General, who had appeared at the initial stage of the hearing, as also Mr. P.K. Shahi, Government Pleader No. 7, took the stand that the district gazette is not official gazette. In fact as would appear from the judgment of this Court in the case of Arunodaya Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited v. The State of Bihar ( 1991 (1) PLJR 380 ) a similar concession had been made by the learned Advocate General and on that concession a Division Bench took the view that the district gazette is not official gazette within the meaning of section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act. My finding in regard to the legal character of the District gazette as also being official gazette apart, I would like to express my surprise as to how such a stand could be taken on behalf of the State. My finding in regard to the legal character of the District gazette as also being official gazette apart, I would like to express my surprise as to how such a stand could be taken on behalf of the State. Such a stand, if accepted, would amount to holding, taking the concession to its logical end, that all that the State Government has done since 1973, in regard to acquisition of lands of different persons in various proceedings under the Act, is not only a nullity, but may also amount to cheating the people, whose lands have been acquired on the basis of such publication. In an age when a mere premise or assurance of the Government or a public authority is enforceable by issuing writ of the appropriate nature, it is not understandable how and whether it is open to the State to take such a stand, contrary to its orders etc., little realising the far reaching implication of such a stand. 62. For the reasons stated above, in my considered opinion, the answer to the question referred to for opinion has to be given in the affirmative i.e. it has to be held that the District gazette published by the Collectors of the districts incorporating the notifications under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act are also official gazette within the meaning of section 3 (39) of the General Clauses Act. In my respectful opinion, therefore, the decision in this regard rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Arunodaya Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (supra) is not in accordance with law. Before I part, I would also like to make it clear, as Brother Sanyal has done, that any observation made in this judgment of mine should not be construed as expression of my opinion on the merits of the case.