Public notice under the Land Acquisition Act suffices for informing interested parties; individual notice is not required, and excessive delay in challenging acquisition proceedings can bar claims.

JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. Heard Mr J. E. Ceolho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel with Mr S. Rivankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr D. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Mr N. Vernekar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

4. Petitioner claiming to be a tenant of house No.E-372 situated in the property bearing survey no.254/1(part) belonging to respondent no.3, challenged the impugned award dated 28.5.2009 and all corresponding actions in connection with the said award.

5. In nutshell it is the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 3 somewhere in August 1978 created a lease in favour of the petitioner in connection with house no.E-372 for a monthly rent of Rs.700/- which was increased from time to time. Respondent no.3 then filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner which was compromised by drawing a decree somewhere in June 1991 wherein respondent no. 3 admitted the petitioner as a tenant of the said house.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that somewhere in August 2022 in Writ Petition No.325 of 2010, a statement was made that the petitioner would be joined as one of the respondents and accordingly notice was issued to the petitioner somewhere in October 2022. On receipt of such notice from this Court in Writ Petition No.325 of 2010 which was taken along with PIL Writ Petition No.45 of 2019, petitioner became aware of the acquisition proceedings conducted way back in the year 2009-10. Thus, present petition is filed claiming a right of the petitioner to be heard before passing of the said award.

7. Mr J E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an interested person as defined under section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and, therefore, he was required to be given notice by acquisition officer personally before passing an award. Mr Pereira would then submit that admittedly the award was passed after the period of two years from the date of Section 4 notification and thus in accordance with Section 11A, such award becomes a nullity. Mr Pereira would then submit that somewhere in August 1997 Government published a notification under Section 4 of the Act, proposing to acquire the land for providing parking facilities and rehabilitation of stalls at Donapaula junction which includes the house wherein the petitioner is a tenant. He submits that being a tenant in the house situated in the property, the petitioner becomes an interested person and therefore, any preliminary notification published under Section 4 of the Act ought to have been served on the interested persons personally. He would submit that such notice is necessary in order to raise objections by the persons interested in any land as provided under Section 5A of the Act, which is prior to issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.

8. Mr Pereira would submit that since the petitioner being a person interested, was entitled to receive notice personally as per Section 9 of the Act. Thus, he submits that since no notice was served on the petitioner, though he is interested in the land being a tenant of the house existing on the said land, entire acquisition proceedings could be challenged by the petitioner and that too after he had knowledge of such acquisition.

9. Mr Pereira would then submit that somewhere in September 1997, Government published notification invoking provisions of Section 17 of the Act thereby exempting the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. Similarly in January 1998 Government published a notification in the official Gazette making a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. However, while making such declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, the petitioner was not shown or named as interested party. No notice was given to the petitioner in that regard. He would further submit that in February 1