Notification published in two dailies having no circulation is improiper.

1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for a public purpose, namely, for providing house-sites to house-less Adi-Dravidars, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of S. No. 142/ID to an extent of 0.25.5 Hectares in Peranoor village, Tenkasi Taluk. He came to know that the first respondent sought to acquire the said land for provision of house-sites to Adi- Dravidars and a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29. 1992. A notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette dated 18. 1993. The petitioner was not served with any notice under section 4(1) or under section 6 of the Act. He is a permanent resident of Peranoor. He has got his permanent house at Peranoor and is residing in that house. The petitioner received a communication dated 12. 1992 stating that notice was not served on the petitioner because he was out of station. On receipt of section 5-A enquiry, the petitioner made a protest to the second respondent stating that the enquiry was bad since notice was not issued to him. Inspite of such protest, no fres h notice was issued and no fresh enquiry was conducted. It is further stated that 4(1) notice said to have been published in “Kumari Murasu” and “Kinnas”. Both the news- papers are said to be Tamil Newspapers. However, both the newspapers are not circulated in the locality where the petitioner resides or where the property situated. In the absence of any notice under the mandatory provision of the Act and there is no circulation at all of the papers in which the notification was published, the entire ac quisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

3. On behalf of the respondents, first respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the 4(1) notification was published in the gazette dated 29. 1992. Enquiry under section 5-A of the Act was conducted by the Special Tahsildar, Tenkasi on 12. 1992. The objection received from the land owners were properly dealt with and rejected. Thereafter final orders were passed by the Special Tahsildar, Tenkasi on 12. 1992. Declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Government gazette dated 18. 1993 and in the two Tamil dailies dated 18. 1992. The substance of the declaration was published in the locality on 28. 1993. Award enquiry notice under section 9(3), 10. 9(1), 10 of the said Act was sent to the land owners. They refused to receive the notice. In the meanwhile the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. It is also stated that the said Tamil Dailies namely, Kumari Murasu and Kinnas are registered Newspapers and approved by the Government and the published copies of the notification were published in the locality i.e., Prianoor village on 110. 1992.

4. In the light of the above pleadings. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

5. Mr.A.C. Marava Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

.(i) The respondents failed to issue notice under Section 4(1) of the said Act and in any event in the absence of service on the person concerned, the method adopted by the respondents by affixing the notice in a stick in the land in question cannot be accepted as sufficient notice;

.(ii) In the absence of any circulation of the dailies namely Kumari Murasu and Kinnas in the locality where the land situate, the respondents failed to follow the provisions contained in Section 4(1) of the Act. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate would contend that there was proper compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act; accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions:

7. With regard to the first contention, even thoug