Mandatory public notice modes must be strictly followed; newspaper publication alone could not validate the Master Plan modification notice.

Mandatory public notice requirements must be strictly complied with where they are designed to protect affected persons' right to object. Publication only through newspapers used a single prescribed mode and therefore did not satisfy Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957; the notice was invalid and the action founded on it could not stand. The record also did not show that belated objections to the proposed Master Plan modification were considered by the competent authority, although no enforceable right existed to insist on consideration of objections filed after expiry of the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants' belated objections to the proposed modification of the Master Plan were considered by the competent authority; (ii) whether publication of the public notice satisfied the mandatory requirements of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants' belated objections to the proposed modification of the Master Plan were considered by the competent authority.

Analysis: The material showed that the objections were not included in the agenda for consideration. Though it was asserted that the objections were read out and ruled out at the meeting, the record of proceedings did not disclose any such disposal. In the absence of any recorded consideration or rejection, the claim that the objections had been duly considered could not be accepted. At the same time, the appellants had no enforceable right to insist on consideration of objections filed after expiry of the prescribed period, and prejudice could not be presumed on that basis.

Conclusion: The belated objections were not shown to have been considered by the competent authority.

Issue (ii): Whether publication of the public notice satisfied the mandatory requirements of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 44 required the notice to be widely made known in the affected locality by affixing copies in conspicuous public places, by beat of drum, or by newspaper advertisement, with the further requirement that any two or more of these prescribed means be used. The provision was construed as mandatory because it protected the right of affected persons to receive clear notice and to object before the proposed change was made. Publication only in newspapers amounted to use of just one prescribed mode and therefore did not satisfy the statutory mandate. The notice was consequently invalid, and action taken on its basis could not stand.

Conclusion: The publication did not comply with Section 44 and the notice was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned public notice and the action founded on it were set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory mode of publication prescribed by law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes mandatory modes of public notice intended to protect the right of affected persons to object, strict compliance with the prescribed modes is required and publication by only one mode is insufficient to validate the action.

---