JUDGMENT

OZA, J.:— This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment of Gujarat High Court at-Ahmedabad in Civil Second Appeal No. 45 of 1963.

2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit No. 1476 of 1958 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad for declaration that the proceedings and award in land acquisition case, No. L.A.Q. 1496 were illegal and for injunction restraining the defendants, the Panch of Nani Hamams Pole of Gujarat and the State of Gujarat from doing any act affecting the plaintiffs possession of Municipal Census Nos. 605 and 605/1 and Census Nos. 1335 to 1337 of Shahpur Ward II and the superstructure standing thereon situated in Nani Hamam, Ahmedabad.

3. These lands were acquired by acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After Notifications under Sections 4 and 6, the acquisition proceedings proceeded further for determination of compensation and an award was made.

4. The grievance made by Plaintiff/ Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was that no notice was given to them personally under Section 4 and Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act and that they were not aware of the land acquisition proceedings till their landlord defendant No. 1 told them that possession of these lands were to be handed over to the Government on 22nd July, 1958. Their contention is that they were the tenants of respondent No. 1 in respect of the acquired land and have raised structures thereupon at their own costs. Being the tenants in the lands acquired and being the occupants of the structures standing on the lands they were entitled to individual notices under Sections 4(1) and 9(3) of the Act and in absence of such notices, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

5. The present appellant, the State of Gujarat, in their written statement pleaded that the notification under Section 4 apart from being published in the Gazette was posted on the site and was served on the persons known or believed to be interested. Similarly notices under Sections 9 and 10 were also posted on the site to be acquired and were also served on the persons known or believed to be interested in the land.

6. The trial Court held that as plaintiffs / respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are persons interested in the acquired, land they were entitled to individual notices under Section 9(2) of. the Act and no notice was served on them as the acquisition authorities did not know that the plaintiffs / respondents are interested in the land as their names did not appear in the City Survey Records. The trial Court further held that the plaintiffs / respondents had actual knowledge of the intended acquisition and as such failure to give individual notice does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. The trial Court therefore dismissed the suit.

7. The plaintiffs / respondents preferred an appeal but the First Appellate Court maintained the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents preferred a second appeal to the High Court and raised the same contentions. The High Court upheld the contentions and set aside the acquisition proceedings. The High Court placing reliance on the earlier decision of the High Court in Ashokkumar Gordhanbhai v. State of Gujarat (1969) 10 Guj LR 503 held that under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 1. of the Rules framed by the State Government under Section 55 of the Act, service of notice on parties interested in the land is not only obligatory but a condition precedent and therefore on this count held the acquisition proceedings to be bad and it also granted injunction restraining the State Government from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs of the property. The High Court refused the certificate under Art. 133 and therefore this appeal has been preferred after obtaining a certificate from this Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the respondents / plaintiffs challenged the proceedings on two grounds; (i