MAY GEORGE vs SPECIAL TAHSILDAR .

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's challenge to the Award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, asserting that the non-service of notice under Section 9(3) does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings if the appellant had the opportunity to seek a reference under Section 18. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 9 are mandatory, but the appellant was granted liberty to file for a reference, thus preserving her rights. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.