Affixing notice on survey stone is not proper service.

The prayer is for a certiorari to call for the records of the respondents relating to the Gazette Notification of the first respondent in R.O.C.No.89488/96(D8), dated 11. 1997 published at page 2 of Salem District Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.3, dated 20.2.1997 and the notice of the second respondent in R.O.C.No.914/96-A, dated 23. 1997 in Form-III and quash the same insofar as they relate to the petitioner herein on the following allegations:

The petitioner owns 0.09.0 hectare in S.No.284/1-C and 14. 0 hectare in S.No.284/2-C both the lands being situated in Panamarathupatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. He is a small farmer and he is depending on the yield from the said lands for his livelihood. On 23. 1997 the second respondent came to the lands made enquiries and only then the petitioner came to know that proceedings had been initiated for acquiring his lands. The petitioner was asked to meet the second respondent in his office on 23. 1997. When he went there he was served with a notice in Form No.III in ROC.No.914/96-A, dated 23. 1997 informing him that the award enquiry would be conducted on the very next day, viz., 23. 1997 at 11 a.m. Immediately on receipt of award enquiry notice in Form No.III, he submitted his objection dated 23. 1997 to the second respondent. He was informed by the second respondent that a decision had already been taken to acquire his lands and therefore the second respondent would not be in position to consider the petitioners objections.

.2. It would appear that a Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published by the first respondent in the Salem District Gazette under Notification No.3, dated 20.2.1997. From the notification thus issued it would be seen that the decision was taken to acquire the petitioners lands in R.O.C.No.89488/96(D8), dated 11. 1997. The petitioner was not served with any notice on him or any other person on his behalf under Sec.4(2) of the Act and this is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore it would vitiate the entire proceedings. The notification published in the District Gazette is also not in conformity with the provisions of Sec.4(1) of the Act. Even for the award enquiry reasonable time had not been given. The petitioner did not have any time to get legal opinion and submit valid objection. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

.3. On14. 1997 notice of motion was ordered by Jayasimha Babu, J. and while ordering such notice, the learned Judge passed the following order:

.“Government Advocate is directed to take notice and secure records in two weeks. Petitioner claims that notice was not served before the notification was issued. If this averment is found to be incorrect. the petitioner will be liable to costs in a sum of Rs.3,000. If the petitioner is still in possession, dispossession not to be effected in the meantime”.

4. In the counter filed in the writ petition it is stated that notice under Sec.4(2) was issued to the petitioner to appear for enquiry which was scheduled to be held on 11. 1996 at the office of the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Salem, and as the petitioner refused to receive the 4(2) notice, the same had been affixed in the Survey stones of the petitioners lands on 110. 1996. The petitioner did not appear for enquiry on 11. 1996 and file any objections to the proposed acquisition. In the result, the Special Tahsildar sent a report to the District Collector on 111. 1996 along with his recommendation and the District Collector based on that report, had approved the 4(1) notification and published the same in the District Gazette on 20.2.1997. Thereafter the notice in Form No.III for award enquiry scheduled to be held on 23. 1997 was received by the petitioner and the petitioner did not appear for the award enquiry on the said day, but had sent an object