Mandatory acquisition notice requirements must be strictly complied with; partial publication does not cure invalid land acquisition proceedings.

Mandatory publication and notice requirements in compulsory land acquisition must be strictly followed where the statute prescribes multiple modes of public notice, including Gazette publication and newspaper publication in the locality. Compliance with only some prescribed modes was insufficient because the safeguards protect landowners' valuable pre-acquisition rights. The failure to publish the acquisition notice in two daily newspapers as required, including the omission of the regional-language publication, and the failure to publish the corrigendum enhancing the acquisition area in any newspaper, rendered the proceedings invalid. Awareness of the acquisition or individual notice could not cure statutory non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of publication and notice under Section 4 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, and whether the proceedings could survive from the stage of objections under Section 5-A.

Analysis: The acquisition statute required notification of the preliminary acquisition in the prescribed modes, including public notice in the locality, publication in the Government Gazette, and publication in two daily newspapers having the largest circulation in the locality, with at least one in the regional language. These requirements were treated as mandatory because they protect the valuable right of landowners before compulsory acquisition. The record showed compliance with some modes, but the publication requirement in two daily newspapers was not fully satisfied since one newspaper was not in the regional language, and the corrigendum enhancing the acquisition area was also not published in any newspaper. The Court held that awareness of the proceedings or individual notices could not cure non-compliance where the statute required strict adherence to the prescribed modes.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were invalidated for breach of the mandatory publication requirements, and the challenge by the landowners succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes multiple mandatory modes for publication and notice in compulsory acquisition, each prescribed mode must be strictly complied with and failure to do so renders the acquisition proceedings void.

---