May George vs Special Tahsildar & Ors

The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which requires notice to be served to the landowner, vitiates the Award made under Section 11 of the Act. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to allow the appellant to file an application for reference under Section 18, emphasizing the necessity of proper notice in acquisition proceedings. The appeal was allowed in part, granting the appellant the opportunity to seek a reference for compensation.