Land acquisition finality and Section 9 notice: belated challenge failed, and non-service did not invalidate vesting or the award.

Completed land acquisition proceedings could not be unsettled by a belated challenge after possession had vested in the State, because title had already passed free from encumbrances and the award had attained finality. The Court also held that non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not, by itself, invalidate the award or subsequent proceedings, since the notice is intended to enable a compensation claim and its omission does not defeat vesting or the availability of compensation remedies. Applying legislative intent, purpose, and consequence, the Court treated the omission as at most an irregularity without fatal prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a challenge to completed land acquisition proceedings and the award could be entertained after long delay and after possession had vested in the State. (ii) Whether non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was mandatory so as to vitiate the award and subsequent proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a challenge to completed land acquisition proceedings and the award could be entertained after long delay and after possession had vested in the State.

Analysis: The acquisition covered a large extent of land, the notification and declaration had been duly published, and the award had already been made. Once possession is taken, the land vests in the State free from encumbrances and cannot be divested on the basis of an belated challenge. The Court also noted that the challenge was raised after an inordinate lapse of time and that the factual findings of the High Court did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The belated challenge was not maintainable and the acquisition could not be disturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was mandatory so as to vitiate the award and subsequent proceedings.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act shows that Section 9 notice is intended to enable a person interested to put forward a claim for compensation. Failure to serve such notice does not affect vesting of title in the State, nor does it by itself invalidate the award, because the person interested can still pursue compensation-related remedies including reference. Applying the test of legislative intent, context, purpose, and consequence, the Court held that the omission, if any, was at most an irregularity and not one that caused fatal prejudice or attracted invalidating consequences.

Conclusion: Section 9(3) is not mandatory in the sense contended, and its non-service does not vitiate the award or subsequent proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed because the acquisition had attained finality and the alleged defect in notice did not invalidate the award or the State's title.

Ratio Decidendi: In completed land acquisition proceedings, a statutory notice whose non-compliance does not carry an invalidating consequence and does not defeat the object of the Act is directory rather than mandatory, and a belated challenge cannot unsettle vested title.

---