Gazette defects and notice sequencing did not invalidate acquisition, but proceedings failed for transfers without valid statutory initiation.

Minor clerical errors in Gazette publication and service of notice did not invalidate acquisition proceedings where the parties received correct notice, were not misled, and had filed objections; service before Gazette publication was treated as non-fatal because the statutory purpose was met. The Tribunal also upheld the fair market value on the development method, holding that the property's commercial potential justified the higher valuation and triggered the statutory presumption under section 269C. However, acquisition could not stand for the portions separately transferred to two transferees because no valid initiation under section 269D was shown for those transfers; the remaining acquisition was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether minor inaccuracies in the Gazette notifications and the sequence of service of notice under section 269D affected the validity of the acquisition proceedings; (ii) whether the fair market value of the transferred property was correctly determined for the purposes of section 269C; (iii) whether the acquisition proceedings could validly cover the entire property when no valid initiation had been made in respect of the portions separately transferred to two transferees.

Issue (i): Whether minor inaccuracies in the Gazette notifications and the sequence of service of notice under section 269D affected the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The notices published in the Gazette contained several clerical and descriptive mistakes, but the parties had received correct notices and were not misled or prejudiced. The defects were treated as minor and not jurisdictional. The service of notice under section 269D(2) before the Gazette publication under section 269D(1) was held not to vitiate the proceedings, since the statutory purpose was satisfied and the parties had already appeared and filed objections.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were not invalid on account of the Gazette errors or the timing of service of notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the fair market value of the transferred property was correctly determined for the purposes of section 269C.

Analysis: The property was in a prime commercial location, and the Departmental Valuation Officer adopted the development method after considering location, subdivision into smaller plots, comparable sales, and the potential of the land. The registered valuer's lower estimate and the rental-capitalisation approach were rejected because they did not reflect the property's true market potential. On the materials accepted by the Tribunal, the fair market value substantially exceeded the apparent consideration by more than the statutory margin.

Conclusion: The fair market value was correctly taken at Rs. 6,58,000, and the statutory presumption under section 269C applied.

Issue (iii): Whether the acquisition proceedings could validly cover the entire property when no valid initiation had been made in respect of the portions separately transferred to two transferees.

Analysis: No valid notice under section 269D was shown in respect of the separately transferred portions purchased by the two transferees, and the Department could not establish valid initiation of proceedings against those specific transfers. The acquisition could not proceed against property for which the statutory initiation itself was absent.

Conclusion: The acquisition failed in respect of the portions transferred to those two transferees, but remained valid as to the other transfers.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of the two separately transferred portions lacking valid initiation, while the remaining acquisition orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Minor defects in Gazette publication or non-prejudicial irregularities in notice do not invalidate acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA, and once the fair market value is found to exceed the apparent consideration by the statutory threshold, the presumption of understatement applies unless effectively rebutted; however, proceedings cannot stand where statutory initiation was never validly taken against a particular transfer.

---