The absence of notice under any of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act does not render an award made by the Land Acquisition Officer a nullity. However, the person interested in the land can move the Collector to make a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by Yousuf Begum, seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the award made on 18-3-1966 by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad District (the 2nd respondent to this writ petition) in Case No. O/1136/la/66, with a further prayer that the petitioner may be made a party to the proceedings before that authority and a direction be issued to that authority to pass a fresh award, and further to pass any order or direction as this Court may deem fit.

( 2 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that although she is "a person interested in the land" which was compulsorily acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of offices and staff quarters for their new Railway Zone, and as such, was entitled to a notice of the land acquisition proceedings under sub-section (2) of Sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, yet the 2nd respondent proceeded with the enquiry without giving any notice to her and made the aforesaid award on 18-3-1966. Consequently, her contention is that the award is a nullity and should be directed to pass a fresh award, after giving due notice to the petitioner along with others who may be interested in the land.

( 3 ) THE brief history of this case is as follows: The lands in question were the inam lands granted in favour of the late Syed Shah Ali Raza Husseini, who was the Sajjada of Dargah Mir Mohammed Saheb, and the inam lands measuring 248 bighas were granted as Maded Maash in favour of the Sajjada through the Muntaquab dated 21st Shahrewar, 1324 Fasli. The petitioner claims to be the grand-daughter of late Syed Rahmatullah Hussaini, the brother of late Syed Shah Ali Raza Hussain. Her case is that after the death of Sued Shah Ali Raza Hussain and Rahmatullah Hussaini, the succession enquiry pertaining to the said inam lands was initiated and the lands were taken under the supervision and management of the Collector, District Atraf Balda, Sarf-e-Khas pending disposal of the enquiry. Later on the lands were alleged to have been transferred by mistake to the Muslim Wakf Board, Andhra Pradesh, for management. After the completion of the succession enquiry, the succession to the inam lands at Malkajgiri village was granted in the names of Faizunnisa Begum, the daughter of Shah Ali Raza Hussain and the petitioners as successor of late Rahmuttullah Husaini, and his daughter Tajunnisa Begum was held entitled only to a share in accordance with the personal law. Faizunnisa Begum died issueless on 31-7-1959 and the petitioner filed a claim for succession which was allowed on 26-6-1961 and she was held to be the inamdar as the heir of the deceased Faizunnisa Begum. However, on appeal by her material aunt Fajunnisa Begum, the case was remanded for re-trial and the lands remained under the supervision of the Muslim Wakf Board. After remand, the question was decided in favour of Tajunnisa Begum. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No. 211 of 1966) and the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of a compromise entered into between the petitioner and Tajunnisa Begum. By that order of this Court dated 12-8-1966, the petitioner herein was held to be the main inamdar in respect of the inam lands. in question and Tajunnisa Begum was held to be a shareholder. Thus, so far as the rights between the petitioner and Tajunnisa Begum were concerned, the order of the High Court decided the rights inter se.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, according to the petitioner, she came to know that some time in the month of October, 1966, an area of 69 acres and 16 guntas of the said inam lands forming S. Nos. 392/1, 393/1, 396 to 400 situated in Malkajgiri village, Hyderabad East Taluk, had been passed by the 2nd respondent fixing the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,10,176-55 P. It would appear that before the 2nd respondent, Syed Nadeemuddin (3rd respon