The service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory and failure to serve such a notice would render the subsequent steps in the acquisition of the land invalid.

1. Mani Ram , petitioner through the present writ petition has challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by notifications under Sections 4 and 6 (annexures C and D respectively) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act, primarily on two grounds (1) that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act had not been published as required by sub-section (1) thereof, and (2) that although he as a tenant and occupier on the part of the land acquired through the said notification was entitled to be served with a notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act yet no such notice was served on him and that failure to serve such a notice on him rendered the subsequent land acquisition proceedings invalid.

2. While on behalf of the State it has been conceded that the petitioner is a tenant on part of the land acquired and that he had not been served with a notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act, it has been denied that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not published in terms of sub-section (1) thereof or the petitioner was an interested person, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act.

3. The primary question that falls for determination is as to whether service of notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act is mandatory and failure of such a notice would render the subsequent steps in the acquisition of the land invalid.

4. Various High Courts have taken diametrically opposite views in the matter. Whereas Andhra Pradesh High Court and Bombay High Court in Velagapudi Kanaka Durga V/s. District Collector, Krishna District Chilakapudi, AIR 1971 Andh. Pra 310; Laxmanrao Kristrao V/s. Provincial Government of Bombay, AIR 1950 Bom 334 respectively; and our own High Court in State of Punjab V/s. Kamal Singh, ILR (1965) 2 Punj 525, (on which decisions the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance), have taken the view that the requirement of service of notice under sub-section (3) of S. 9 of the Act is mandatory and failure thereof would vitiate the subsequent proceedings. The opposite view received support from Patna High Court in Shivdev Singh V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 Pat 201; and Punjab High Court in Jhandu Lal Budh Ram V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 Punj 535.

5. Before proceeding with the consideration of the question posed, it is necessary at this stage to notice the relevant provisions of Section 9 of the Act which read :

"9. (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him.

* * * *

(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.

* * * *"

6. In Laxmanrao Kristrao s case AIR 1950 Bom 334 (supra), Chagla, C. J., speaking for the Court expressed his view with some vehemence as would be clear from the following observations:-

"It will be noticed that an obligation is cast upon the Collector to serve a notice on every occupier of the land which is to be acquired. There is also an obligation cast upon him to serve a notice on persons who are known to him to be interested in the land or whom he believes to be interested in the land. Therefore, the Legislature has made a clear distinction between occupiers of the land and persons who are interested in the land. As far as occupiers are concerned, the Collector must serve a notice upon the occupier. As far as persons interested are concerned, the obligation is cast upon him only if he knows of such persons or believes that there are such persons. With regard to the first class th