Acquisition violates Article 300A when notifications omit the recorded purchaser and name the former owner.

Jayamma purchased 34 guntas in Sy. No. 106/2 from respondent No. 4 under a sale deed dated 10 December 2004.

Mutation proceedings followed, and her name was entered in the revenue records for 2005–06, before the preliminary acquisition notification was issued on 19 September 2006.

The preliminary and final notifications, dated 19 September 2006 and 2 February 2008 respectively, named the vendor; the award notice dated 2 May 2011 also directed compensation to him.

Jayamma stated that she learned of the acquisition in 2013 and challenged the notifications and award notice by writ petition.

The respondents contended that the revenue records at the time of acquisition showed the vendor’s name, that possession had been taken, and that the petition was belated.

The Court found that Jayamma’s name had been entered in the revenue records before the preliminary notification.

1. Whether the acquisition notifications and award notice were liable to be quashed because Jayamma, whose name had been entered in the revenue records before the preliminary notification, was not named as a person interested in the acquisition.

2. Whether the acquisition could stand where the respondents attributed the omission to an error in the revenue records and asserted that possession had been taken.

Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the preliminary notification initiates the acquisition process; Section 6(1) provides for the declaration of intended acquisition, and Section 12(2) concerns notice of the award.

The Court reasoned that where the purchaser’s name had been entered in the revenue records before notification, the acquiring authorities ought to have indicated her as a person interested in the acquisition.

An acquisition that proceeds without doing so may fail to comply with law and violate the protection of property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

No precedent was cited.

The sale deed and revenue records established that Jayamma purchased the 34 guntas and that her name was recorded before the preliminary notification.

Nevertheless, the authorities issued the notifications and passed the award in the vendor’s name.

The respondents’ explanation that the omission resulted from a revenue-record error did not cure the failure to identify Jayamma as a person interested.

Although the respondents asserted that possession had been taken, the Court also noted that no layout had been formed or sites allotted on the land; it concluded that the acquisition did not satisfy the requirements of law or Article 300A.

It left the respondents at liberty to take steps to acquire the land afresh in accordance with law.