JUDGMENT DESHMUKH C. J-A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question to a larger Bench: "Whether an individual notice under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 1 of the Rules framed by the State Government is necessary to be given to a person who is interested in the land? If so, what will be the effect of the absence of such notice?" We are inclined, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, to dispose of the entire petition, though the reference order refers only a specific question to us. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side we are also inclined to re-frame the question as follows: "Is the Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act rendered ineffective, if an individual notice contemplated by section 4 (1) of the said Act read with the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra is not served upon a person interested?" 2. A very few facts need be noted, for understanding the question raised for our consideration. The petitioner before us was the owner of the land, who had sold the same to respondent No.3 in the year 1967. The petitioner was raising the dispute about the real nature of the transaction subject to such other legal remedies that may be open to him in that behalf. That question is not now being agitated before us nor it is necessary for disposing of the present petition. That land which was sold to respondent No.3 was notified for acquisition under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by a Notification dated 23rd June 1971. A gazette Notification was properly published, as also local publication by beat of drums and sufficient publication in the local area. Under the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra the Land Acquisition Officer representing the Collector also issued individual notices under the Rules framed under section 55 of the Act. These Rules appear at Appendix VII, page 213 of the Manual of Land Acquisition for State of Maharashtra. Such a notice was issued only to respondent No.3, whose name appears as holder of the land after the sale-deed of 1967. 3. After holding inquiry under section 5-A, section 6 Notification was issued. These Rules appear at Appendix VII, page 213 of the Manual of Land Acquisition for State of Maharashtra. Such a notice was issued only to respondent No.3, whose name appears as holder of the land after the sale-deed of 1967. 3. After holding inquiry under section 5-A, section 6 Notification was issued. At the inquiry the petitioner could not be a party because he was not aware of the acquisition, as he had not received any individual notice under the Rules of the State of Maharashtra. The Land Acquisition Officer then issued section 9 notice. That was also served on respondent No.3 alone. An Award was declared on 29th February 1972. 4. The petitioners' case was that he somehow came to know of the acquisition proceedings by about 27th March 1972, hence he filed the present Writ Petition to obtain a declaration that the Notifications under section 4 as well as under section 6 are bad, unlawful and should be quashed, as no individual notice was ever issued upon the petitioner who is an interested person. 5. For the purpose of this petition the simple case that is put forth by the petitioner is that the back-ground of sale does not represent the real nature of the transaction. However, such an allegation may be beyond the scope of the inquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer. He is content to plead for the time being that in spite of the sale-deed he has always continued to be in possession and never parted with possession. Not only that, but his name appears in Column 4 meant for showing the person or persons who are in physical and actual cultivation. As actual cultivators he is interested in the land as well as the compensation that would be offered. As such he is entitled to such individual notice, and the absence of such a notice renders the entire acquisition proceedings infructuous. 6. The question whether individual notice to a person interested in the land is necessary under the Rules is the subject-matter of two judgments of this Court, and they were differing judgments, hence the occasion for this reference. 7. In a reported judgment of this Court, viz. Sardar Ajitsingh v. State or Maharashtra and others·, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that an individual notice to a person interested is a statutory requirement. 7. In a reported judgment of this Court, viz. Sardar Ajitsingh v. State or Maharashtra and others·, a Division Bench of this Court took the view that an individual notice to a person interested is a statutory requirement. This is because a notice of this type is prescribed by the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra. The Manual of Land Acquisition refers to the total procedure contained in sections 4 and 5-A, and the issuance of instructions to the officers for being followed. Such instructions are permissible to be issued under section 55 of the Act. Para 30-A of the Manual at page 41 of 1974 edition, deals with the manner in which the Gazette Notification should be published, how the publication in the local area should be carried out and how individual notices should be served upon the persons interested. This para refers to the Rules framed under Para 30-B relating to the enquiry under section 5-A. Both these paragraphs refer in due course to the Appendices VI and VII. Appendix VI appearing at page 212 of the Manual is the form of individual notice. A bare look at the form shows that the notice is issued to the individual who may have interest in the land under acquisition. Appendix VII, which contains the Rules under section 5-A, has the following Rule 1 :- "Whenever any notification under section 4 has been published but the provisions of section 17 have not been applied; and the Collector has under section 4 (I) issued notices to the parties interested; and on or before the last date fixed by the Collector in those notices in this behalf any objection is lodged under section 5-A (2); firstly, the Collector shall record the objection in his proceedings; secondly, the Collector shall consider whether the objection is admissible according to these rules." Then follow the grounds on which the Collector has to apply his mind as to whether the notified purpose is not genuinely or properly a public purpose; whether the land notified is not suitable for the notified purpose; whether the land is not so well suited as other land; whether the area proposed is excessive; whether the objector's land has been selected maliciously or vexatiously; 8. It, therefore, means that the Rules framed by the State require an individual notice to be served. It, therefore, means that the Rules framed by the State require an individual notice to be served. It is true that section 4 (1) of the Act by itself does not contemplate the issuance of any individual notice. On the plain wording of section 4 (1) of the Act it seems to be enough if a notification is published in the Official Gazette and that a public notice of the substance of such a notification is caused to be given in any convenient place in the locality. If the entire provisions on the subject ended with section 4 (1) of the Act, probably satisfaction of these two requirements would satisfy all the requirements of law. 9. However, it may happen that an individual may miss the local publication or the Official Gazette publication. The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is a compulsory acquisition. If the objector finds that he has valid objections to be raised and he can avoid the acquisition of his land, he has one opportunity under the law and that opportunity is furnished to him when he gets the notice under the Rules framed by the State and he is specifically made aware of the requirement by the State for public purpose of his own property. At this stage he gets an opportunity to point out that the acquisition is either malicious or that the acquisition is if1 excess of the land required or that the land is not well suited compared to other land, or that the land notified is not suitable for the notified purpose or that the notified purpose is not genuinely and properly a public purpose. In order to enable a citizen, and more particularly a resident of a village who is quite likely to miss the local publication as well as the Gazette Notification that this sanguine rule is made by the State of Maharashtra. Here we shall refer to the earlier Division Bench judgment in Sardar Ajitsingh's case (supra), wherein the Division Bench was called upon to consider the effect of issuance of such a notice before the publication of notification under section 6. The learned Judges considered the Rules framed under section 5-A of the Act to mean that before section 5-A enquiry is completed there are three requirements which must be satisfied by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Judges considered the Rules framed under section 5-A of the Act to mean that before section 5-A enquiry is completed there are three requirements which must be satisfied by the Land Acquisition Officer. He must see that the acquisition notice is published in an Official Gazette; he must also see that sufficient publicity is given to the substance of that notification in the local area concerned, where the land is situate and is to be acquired; and the third requirement being service of individual notice on the person interested. It would be appropriate to say that an interested person is made aware or has knowledge of the acquisition of his land by the State, and who that interested person could be can certainly be confined to the person or persons whose names appear on the records and this would indicate some kind of interest a person may have. Such interested person is entitled to individual notice under the Rules framed by the State. The learned Judges, therefore, concluded that the rule is a statutory rule and a notification under section 6 would be bad unless such a notice was served on the person interested. They, therefore, quashed the notification issued under section 6 of the Act and further concluded by way of clarification that an invalid notification under section 6 would exhaust the efficacy of the notification under section 4 on which it is based. 10. After the formation of the State of Gujarat, that State also seems to have followed the same para 30-B and the Rules made under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Officer as guidelines for the Officers. When a similar question arose before the Gujarat High Court in Ashokkumar Gordhanbhai v. State of Gujarat and others2, the Division Bench of that Court took the view similar to the judgment of this Court in Sardar Ajitsingh's case (supra). The same para 30-B consisting of the Rules framed by section 5-A has been construed to afford a safety valve to the individual to ventilate his grievances before the Land Acquisition Officer against the compulsory acquisition of the land. This decision of the Division Bench was further followed by another Division Bench of that Court in Madhukantaben v. The State of Gujarat and another3. 11. This decision of the Division Bench was further followed by another Division Bench of that Court in Madhukantaben v. The State of Gujarat and another3. 11. In spite of an earlier judgment of this Court in Sardar Ajitsingh's case, a contrary view has been taken by another Division Bench in A. P. Puranik v. Sholapur Municipal Corporation4. The learned Judges constituting the Division Bench merely considered section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and found that that section does not require any individual notice to be given. Unfortunately, neither the Rules framed by the State nor the construction put on those Rules by the earlier judgment of the Division Bench was brought to the notice of the learned Judges. By merely looking at the provisions of section 4 (1) they came to the conclusion that the requirements of the section are satisfied the moment an Official Gazette Notification is issued and a substance thereof is properly published in the local area in convenient places. It is this conflicting judgment which gave- an occasion for the present reference. 12. If the matters had ended with this, and probably if we were free to express ourselves we would have agreed with respect with the Division Bench of this Court in Sardar Ajitsingh's case and would have differed and perhaps over-ruled the other Division Bench judgment in A. P. Puranik's case. However, we do not seem to have any such liberty, as the point has been expressly concluded by the Supreme Court in a similar matter reaching the Supreme Court from the State of Gujarat. It appears that a large scale acquisition of land took place in Gujarat and a number of writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisitions. Most of the petitions became in effective. A group of few matters challenging the proposed acquisitions and some of the writ Petitions reached the Supreme Court in appeals. Two such appeals were heard by the Supreme Court in Bai Malibabu v. State of Gujarat5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-original petitioners, raised several points before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that most of the points are such as are to be merely stated for being rejected. Two such appeals were heard by the Supreme Court in Bai Malibabu v. State of Gujarat5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-original petitioners, raised several points before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that most of the points are such as are to be merely stated for being rejected. They attached significant countenance to a couple of points, of which one relates to the nature of notice that must be served on the individual interested in the acquisition of the land under section 4 (1) read with section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. By a brief discussion, it appears, their Lordships of the Supreme Court sought to indicate that the challenge to the acquisitions was raised before the Gujarat High Court among other grounds also on the ground that an individual notice under section 4 (1) of the Act was not issued to the petitioners concerned. It further appears that the Gujarat High Court took the view that it is not a requirement of section 4 (1) of the Act that an individual notice need be served upon any party. As all the challenges failed, the matters reached the Supreme Court. This question relating to the want of individual notice was posed before the Supreme Court and the entire discussion relating to the subject is contained in para 5 of the report, which is as follows: (p. 518) "Mr. Nagarseth then submitted that no special notice was given to the appellants of the notification under section 4 (1) as required by the Gujarat Rules, the objections filed by the appellants under section 5-A were not properly inquired into and heard, the State Government did not give any opportunity to them to make their submissions vis-a-vis the report submitted by the Collector, and the aforesaid infirmities vitiated the declaration under section 6 of the Act. The High Court has rightly held that no special notice was necessary to be given to the appellants in regard to the notification under section 4 (1). Our attention was drawn to the alleged Rule 30-B of the Gujarat Rules in support of the contention that such notice was necessary to be issued to the parties interested. There is no such requirement in the said rules. It merely pre-supposes that the Collector has issued notices to the parties interested under section 4(1). Our attention was drawn to the alleged Rule 30-B of the Gujarat Rules in support of the contention that such notice was necessary to be issued to the parties interested. There is no such requirement in the said rules. It merely pre-supposes that the Collector has issued notices to the parties interested under section 4(1). The requirement of the section is giving of a general notice and by two methods-(1) by the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and (2) causing public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The appellants do not contend that there was no compliance with the requirements aforesaid. Proper inquiry was held under section 5-A of the Act and full opportunity was given to the appellants. It was not the requirement of the law to give any further opportunity after a report was made to the State Government. It is the function of the State Government to consider the report of the Collector and proceed further in the matter as they think fit and proper to do." 13. We have not had the advantage of looking at the original judgment of the High Court against which the appeal was filed. The first two sentences of the above paragraph create an impression that the petitioners before the Supreme Court had already filed objections for the purpose of inquiry under section 5-A. They had not received any individual notices and that is a possible inference that could be gathered from the two sentences. In the above paragraph what is stated is that the learned counsel Mr. Nagarseth then submitted that no special notice was given to the appellants of the Notification under section 4 (1) as requited by the Gujarat Rules, the objections filed by the appellants under section 5-A were not properly inquired into and heard. The learned counsel seems to have argued on both the points in succession that no individual notices were served on the parties but still the objections filed had not been properly considered. If the objections were filed even without a notice, it would be apparent that the purpose of the notice is served and the party was in a position to raise objections in good time before the inquiry under section 5-A of the Act was instituted. If the objections were filed even without a notice, it would be apparent that the purpose of the notice is served and the party was in a position to raise objections in good time before the inquiry under section 5-A of the Act was instituted. However, we cannot vouchsafe the correctness of the position as the original judgment is not made available to us. What is important is that the attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to Rule 30-B of the Gujarat Rules. These Rules are the same which are the Maharashtra Rules, as is apparent from the discussion in the earlier two Gujarat High Court decisions where the requirement of individual notice is held to be mandatory. What the Supreme Court says is that their attention was drawn to the alleged Rule 30-B of the Gujarat Rules in support of the contention that such notice was necessary to be issued to the parties interested. What is further important to be noticed is the observation of the Supreme Court that "There is no such requirement as in the said Rules. It merely pre-supposes that the Collector has issued notices to the parties interested under section 4 (1)". The Supreme Court then lays down as to what is the requirement of section 4 (1) of the Act. They analyse and say that the Gazette Notification has to be published and the substance of such notification be publicised at convenient places in the locality from where the land has been notified for acquisition. If these two requirements are complied with then section 4 (1) of the Act has been followed, and therefore, the provisions of Rule 30-B of the Gujarat Rules, which merely requires the following of such a procedure, has been complied with. This being the conclusion to which the Supreme Court has arrived at, it is not possible for us now to take a different view. 14. This being the conclusion to which the Supreme Court has arrived at, it is not possible for us now to take a different view. 14. We have already referred to the form of the individual notice prescribed by para 30-A of the Manual of Land Acquisition for the State of Maharashtra followed by the Rules referred to under para 30-B. Though we are unable to give any relief to the petitioner in the face of the Supreme Court judgment, we would make it clear that apart from an accidental slip the Revenue Officers of the State of Maharashtra are required to follow the Rules made by the State and we hope, they would continue to do the same. If somehow in some cases individual notices are not issued, the proceedings would not be rendered invalid in view of the Supreme Court decision, which binds us and equally binds the entire country. In the circumstances, the only answer that we could give to the question raised should be in the negative. Since this is the only question referred and the answer being in the negative, the petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. At this stage Mr. S. N. Kherdekar, counsel for the petitioner, makes a prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our view, this is a fit case in which a certificate should be issued under clauses (a) and (b) of sub article (i) of Article 133 of the Constitution. Certificate to issue accordingly. Reference answered accordingly.