As per case facts, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for lands possessed by respondents, who were tenants and had built structures. Respondents filed a civil ... suit challenging the acquisition and award, contending that no individual notice was served to them under Sections 4 and 9(3) of the Act, and they were unaware of the proceedings, thus vitiating the entire process. The State argued that notifications were duly published in the Gazette, pasted on site, and served on known interested parties. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, noting the respondents' actual knowledge. However, the High Court set aside the acquisition, ruling that individual notice under Section 4 read with Rule 1 of the Bombay Rules was obligatory. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.The question arose whether Rule 1 of the Bombay Rules, read with Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, mandates individual personal notice to all interested parties for acquisition proceedings to be valid, or if public notice at a convenient locality is sufficient.Finally, the Supreme Court held that Rule 1, when read with Section 4(1), does not require personal individual notice to every interested person. Section 4(1) contemplates a public notice published in the Official Gazette and further public notice of its substance at convenient places in the locality. Since this procedure was followed, the acquisition proceedings were not vitiated due to the absence of individual notices. The Court overruled the High Court's prior decision in Ashokkumar Gordhanbhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. and affirmed its own previous rulings which held that individual notice is not a prerequisite.