The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the service of notices under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 and the sufficiency of notice under the relevant provisions.

The petitioner's application (Ext. P-3), purportedly filed under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was rejected by the impugned order (Ext. P-5) on the ground that it was presented out of time. According to the petitioner he has had no notice of the various steps taken by the respondent for the acquisition of the land. It is stated that no notice under either R.3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 ('the Rules') or S.9(2) and (3) or S.12 of the Act was received by him. He filed the application under S.20 (Ext. P-3, dated 22-6-1977) as soon as he heard of the award when the Sub-Court, Tellicherry sent him a notice in L.A.R. No. 92/77. It is accordingly submitted by the petitioner that Ext. P-3 was filed within the time mentioned under S.20(2)(b).

2. In the counter-affidavit dated 7-2-1978 it has been stated by the respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer that notice contemplated wider Ss.3, 9 and 12 as well as R.3 had been duly issued. Notice under R.3 could not be served on the petitioner as he was not found at the place of his residence. But it was served on Abdullakutty who is the petitioner's mother's sister's son. Abdullakutty resides at the petitioner's place of residence. Notice under Section 9(8) was also served on Abdullakutty. Public notice under S.9(1) had been duly made. Notice under S.12(2) was first sent to the petitioner by registered post, but it was returned with the endorsement on the cover that the petitioner could not be found as he had left without instructions. That notice was subsequently served upon Abdullakutty. All this is clearly stated in the counter-affidavit. That the notices were served on Abdullakutty is not in doubt because his signature appears in the acknowledgment slips. No affidavit has been filed in reply to the counter-affidavit a copy of which was duly served on the petitioner a year ago. In the circumstances the petitioner's counsel Shri Nayanar, is not in a position to deny the fact that notices were served or Abdullakutty or that Abdullakutty is a close relative residing with the petitioner, as alleged in the counter-affidavit. Shri Nayanar, however, submits that a notice under S.9(3) has not been served on the petitioner in the manner prescribed under S.9(4). The answer to this contention is S.9(5) as well as S.49(3).

3. I shall first read S.9(3) :

"The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier, if any, of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate."

The petitioner is an occupier of the land and is therefore entitled to notice as such under S.9(3). The manner of service of notice is prescribed under S.9(4) which reads :

"In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by registered post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business."

Admittedly the petitioner has not changed his place of residence. Apparently therefore he was not available at the time when the notice was taken to him. But notice was served on Abdullakutty who is a close relative residing at the place of residence of the petitioner. It was apparently in such capacity that he received the notice. In such circumstances the respondents are, in my view, justified in treating Abdullakutty as an agent for the purpose of service in terms of that Section.

4. Section 49 refers to service of notices. It reads :

"49. Service of notices - (1) .........

(2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named.

(3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him, and if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served, by fixing the cop