MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANI Ram petitioner through the present writ petition has challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by notifications under Sections 4 and 6 (an-nexures 'c' and 'd' respectively) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) primarily on two grounds (1) that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act had not been published as required by Sub-section (1) thereof, and (2) that although he as a tenant and occupier on the part of the land acquired through the said notification was entitled to be served with a notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act yet no such notice was served on him and that failure to serve such a notice on him rendered the subsequent land acquisition proceedings invalid.

(2.) WHILE on behalf of the State it has been conceded that the petitioner is a tenant on part of the land acquired and that he had not been served with a notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act, it has been denied that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not published in terms of Sub-section (1) thereof or the petitioner was an interested person, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act.

(3.) THE primary question that falls for determination, is as to whether service of notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act is mandatory and failure of such a notice would render the subsequent steps in the acquisition of the land invalid.