The participation of the person interested in the acquisition proceedings precludes them from challenging the Section 4 notification on the ground of defectiveness.

ORDER :

S.N. Variava, J.

These appeals are against the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 5-7-1995 and 15-12-1995.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the 1st respondent herein purchased the property concerned from one Mr. Subbaiah on 2-4-1971. The name of the 1st respondent was mutated in the municipal records on 14-12-1971. On 28-5-1985, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was issued. The said notification was published in the gazette on 8-7-1985. Thereafter, it was published in two daily newspapers (one in Telugu and another in English) on 21-7-1985. It was also notified by beat of tom tom in the locality on 29-7-1985.

3. The 1st respondent filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, a Section 6 notification was issued on 24-5-1986 and published in the gazette on 30-6-1986. The Section 6 notification was also published in two daily local newspapers on 6-7-1986. A declaration was made by beat of tom tom in the locality and affixing copy on 8-7-1986.

4. Thereafter, notices under Sections 9(2) and 10 of the Act were issued to the 1st respondent. The award inquiry was fixed on 4-8-1986. The father of the 1st respondent appeared on 4-8-1986 along with a clerk of an advocate who filed his vakalatnama. At their request the case was posted to 18-8-1986. On 18-8-1986 the father of the 1st respondent sought further time. At his request the case was adjourned to 29-9-1986. On 29-9-1986, the 1st respondent and his father both appeared. They again sought time. At their request the matter was again adjourned to 20-10-1986 and then to 9-11-1986. At the request of the 1st respondent the matter was thereafter postponed on 17-11-1986, 12-1-1987, 19-1-1987 and 2-2-1987. On 2-2-1987, the 1st respondent and his advocate remained present. They adduced some evidence. They again remained present on 16-2-1987 and filed some further documents. The award inquiry was completed on 16-2-1987 and the award was passed on 28-6-1988.

5. The 1st respondent was then issued a notice to vacate. At this stage, the 1st respondent filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. In the writ petition, the ground taken is that under the Section 4 notification the name of the owner and occupier was shown as K.B. Subbaiah even though the property had been mutated in his name. It was claimed that as his name had not been shown the notification was bad. The second ground was that there was no proper notice under Section 5-A of the Act. It was also averred that he had filed objections under Section 5-A, but that his objections had not been considered by the authorities. At this stage, to be noted that there is no claim or complaint that he has not been personally heard in Section 5-A proceedings. The only ground is that his objections were not considered. The third ground was that the post office for which acquisition was taking place was already located in a building which was more conducive and bigger than the building which was being acquired. It was also averred that he was only owning this residential building and the acquisition would make him shelter less. It is averred that no notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued and that without issuing a Section 6 notification, notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 were served on him. In the writ petition, it is not stated that he had participated in the award proceedings. Instead, it is claimed that to his surprise and dismay a notice dated 28-6-1988 was issued to him calling upon him to hand over possession.

6. To this writ petition, counters were filed both by the State Government as well as the Union of India. It was pointed out that the property had been correctly described in the Section 4 notification. It was pointed out that the 1st respondent had filed objections under Section 5-A. It was pointed out that Section 5-A inquiry lasted from 31-8-1985 to 23-12-1985 and that in v