In its ruling on acquisition of land, the Supreme Court explained the three states of the acquisition process, saying Section 4 requires that the government should give proper publicity to the notification and purpose for which the land is being taken over, Section 6 covers the second state of declaration of the award while Section 9 takes
care of the individual’s right to make a reference to the land settlement tribunal if not satisfied with the award. But none of these sections gave a right to an individual to refuse parting with the land merely on the ground that a specific notice was not served on him or her.
This assumes significance in view of the courts already flooded with cases of individual farmers challenging the acquisition of the land by the government and in many states turning into a political controversy. The ruling came on an appeal of May George, who had challenged the acquiring of her plot falling within a combined area of 30.80 acres belonging to several farmers in village Seevaram of Chingleput district.