Land acquisition validity upheld despite delay, post-notification purchase, unequal exemption claim, and descriptive notice error.

Delay between the preliminary notification and the declaration under the land acquisition law did not invalidate the acquisition where the interval was explained by finalisation of the improvement scheme and was not inordinate. A purchaser who bought and constructed after the preliminary notification acquired no lawful title against the State and could not defeat the acquisition once possession was taken. A mistaken exemption granted to another property did not entitle the claimant to equal treatment under Article 14, because equality cannot be based on perpetuating illegality. Mention of the sub-division number in the Section 9 notice was only descriptive and did not vitiate the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether delay between the preliminary notification and the declaration under the land acquisition law vitiated the acquisition; (ii) whether a purchaser after the preliminary notification could challenge the acquisition and claim title against the State; (iii) whether selective exemption granted to another property made the refusal of exemption discriminatory and invalid; and (iv) whether mention of the sub-division number in the notice under Section 9 invalidated the acquisition.

Issue (i): whether delay between the preliminary notification and the declaration under the land acquisition law vitiated the acquisition.

Analysis: The land was acquired by a preliminary notification, and the declaration followed after the improvement scheme had been finalised and approved. The delay was explained by the time taken for preparation and finalisation of the scheme. In the circumstances, the interval did not constitute inordinate delay so as to invalidate the acquisition.

Conclusion: The acquisition was not vitiated by delay.

Issue (ii): whether a purchaser after the preliminary notification could challenge the acquisition and claim title against the State.

Analysis: The purchase and construction were made after publication of the preliminary notification. A post-notification purchaser acquires no lawful title as against the State and cannot rely on such purchase to defeat the acquisition. Once possession is taken, the State is entitled to absolute title free from encumbrances.

Conclusion: The appellant could not challenge the acquisition on the basis of the later purchase and had no valid title against the State.

Issue (iii): whether selective exemption granted to another property made the refusal of exemption discriminatory and invalid.

Analysis: A mistaken or wrongful exemption granted to another property does not create a right to claim the same benefit. Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or to compel equal treatment in an error committed by the authorities.

Conclusion: The refusal of exemption was not invalid on the ground of discrimination.

Issue (iv): whether mention of the sub-division number in the notice under Section 9 invalidated the acquisition.

Analysis: The preliminary notification identified the main survey number, and the details could be supplemented at the later stage of proceedings. The subsequent mention of the sub-division number in the notice was only descriptive and did not affect the validity of the preliminary notification.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were not invalid for wrong mention of the survey sub-division.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquisition failed on every substantial ground, and the land acquisition proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-notification purchaser cannot defeat a valid acquisition, a wrong benefit granted to another does not create enforceable equality, and a descriptive error in the notice does not invalidate a duly issued preliminary acquisition notification.

---