Mandatory notice under Chapter XX-A was essential; failure to serve the transferee vitiated acquisition proceedings despite section 292B.

Non-service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) on a transferee entitled to object to proposed acquisition under Chapter XX-A was treated as a mandatory defect, because it denied the statutory opportunity of being heard. The transferee was neither served nor validly represented by the co-transferee, so the omission was not a mere technical irregularity. Section 292B did not cure the defect, as it cannot validate a complete absence of service and in any event had come into force after commencement of the proceedings. The Allahabad HC therefore held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated in entirety.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) on a transferee interested in the property vitiated the acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A, and whether section 292B could save the defect.

Analysis: Service of notice under section 269D(2)(a) was treated as mandatory because the person on whom notice is served is entitled to object to the proposed acquisition. The transferee concerned had not been served and was not validly represented by the co-transferee, so the statutory opportunity of being heard was denied. The defect was not regarded as a mere technical irregularity, and section 292B was held inapplicable because it cannot cure a complete absence of service and, in any event, came into force later than the initiation of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The non-service of notice vitiated the acquisition proceedings in their entirety, and the challenge to the acquisition succeeded.

---