Land acquisition notices and vesting were upheld where revenue records remained unchanged and later land use did not vitiate the acquisition.

Land acquisition notices issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were treated as valid because the petitioner had not mutated title in its name and the authorities could rely on revenue records standing in the erstwhile owner's name; the encumbrance certificate entry was insufficient to require further enquiry, so the notice challenge failed. The urgency-based acquisition was also upheld because possession was taken and the award was passed within the prescribed period, and once the land vested in the State, post-notification delay or later use for a different public purpose did not furnish a basis to invalidate the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the land acquisition proceedings were vitiated for want of notice to the writ petitioner and for reliance on revenue records standing in the name of the erstwhile owner. (ii) Whether invocation of the urgency clause and the subsequent acquisition were liable to be set aside on the ground of post-notification delay or non-utilisation of the acquired land.

Issue (i): Whether the land acquisition proceedings were vitiated for want of notice to the writ petitioner and for reliance on revenue records standing in the name of the erstwhile owner.

Analysis: The notices issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were held to be in order. The petitioner had not mutated the property in its name, and the authorities were entitled to rely on the revenue records reflecting the erstwhile owner. The mere reflection of the petitioner's name in the encumbrance certificate did not displace the revenue entries or create a duty on the authorities to undertake further enquiries.

Conclusion: The challenge based on alleged non-service of notice failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the urgency clause and the subsequent acquisition were liable to be set aside on the ground of post-notification delay or non-utilisation of the acquired land.

Analysis: The acquisition was completed by notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, possession was taken, and the award was passed within the prescribed period. Once the land vested in the State, the owner had no right to insist on a particular use of the land or to reclaim it because the land was later put to a different public purpose. Post-notification delay was held not to be a ground to invalidate the acquisition itself.

Conclusion: The invocation of urgency and the acquisition proceedings were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal did not disclose any ground warranting interference with the order dismissing the writ petition, and the acquisition was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In land acquisition matters, the authorities may proceed on the basis of existing revenue records for notice, and once acquisition is completed and possession is taken, the land vests in the State free from encumbrances, leaving no basis to invalidate the acquisition merely because the owner was not mutated in the records or because the land was later used differently.

---