Land acquisition notices and later beneficiary disinclination did not invalidate proceedings without a withdrawal notification.

Acquisition proceedings were not invalid merely because notices were not personally served on subsequent purchasers whose names had not been mutated in the revenue records; service on the original owner was treated as sufficient for the statutory stage in question. Publication of the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration satisfied the statutory requirement, and a post-award purchaser could not defeat the acquisition on that basis. Later disinclination by the beneficiary did not render the acquisition ineffective in the absence of a notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing from acquisition, so the challenge to quash the acquisition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquisition notification and award could be quashed for non-service of notices on subsequent purchasers and whether any later disinclination of the beneficiary could be considered in the absence of a notification withdrawing from acquisition.

Analysis: Publication under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 were held sufficient where the statute did not require personal service of notice at that stage. Notices under Section 9 could not be served on respondents whose names were not mutated in the revenue records, though the original owner had been served. The subsequent purchaser after the award could not complain, and the Court held that the acquisition could not be treated as ineffective merely because the beneficiary later stated that it did not need the land. In the absence of a notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing from acquisition, the Court could not act on such later disinclination.

Conclusion: The quashing of the acquisition was unjustified and the challenge to the acquisition failed.

---