Mandatory acquisition notice for a company in liquidation can vitiate the award and justify parity-based compensation re-determination.

Mandatory individual notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, read with section 9(4), was required before the Collector could proceed to award land belonging to a company in liquidation, and service had to be effected on the company in the manner required by law. The absence of such notice vitiated the acquisition enquiry as against the company. On compensation, the text applies parity with similarly acquired adjacent land and states that, where a consent award had fixed a higher rate for comparable land in the same acquisition, compensation for the company's land could be re-determined at that rate. The differential amount was directed to be paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had to be served on the company under liquidation before passing the award; and (ii) whether the compensation payable to the company's land could be re-determined at the same rate as the consent award passed in respect of similarly acquired adjacent land.

Issue (i): Whether notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had to be served on the company under liquidation before passing the award.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between public notice under section 9(1) and the mandatory individual notice under section 9(3). Service under section 9(3), read with section 9(4), is an integral requirement before the Collector can lawfully proceed with the enquiry under section 11. Where the person interested is a body corporate in liquidation, notice had to be sent to the registered office in the manner required by law. The absence of such service vitiated the acquisition enquiry so far as the company was concerned.

Conclusion: Yes. Service of notice under section 9(3) was mandatory, and the award could not validly be passed against the company without such service.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation payable to the company's land could be re-determined at the same rate as the consent award passed in respect of similarly acquired adjacent land.

Analysis: The company court retained exclusive control over claims and assets of the company in liquidation under the Companies Act, 1956. Since similarly situated lands covered by the same acquisition process had been compensated at a higher consent rate, parity required that the company be afforded the same treatment. The award under section 11(2) reflected a consensual valuation, and there was no principled distinction denying the company the benefit of the same rate once proper notice had been omitted and the liquidator was entitled to act for the estate.

Conclusion: Yes. The compensation was liable to be re-determined at the consent rate of Rs. 2,50,000 per acre.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, and the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to re-fix compensation for the acquired land of the company in liquidation at the consent rate and to pay the differential amount.

Ratio Decidendi: In acquisition proceedings concerning a company in liquidation, mandatory notice to the company under section 9(3) is a precondition to a valid award, and the company court may direct re-determination of compensation on a parity basis where similarly situated landowners received a consent award under the same acquisition notification.

---