An enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act must be conducted after the service of the remarks of the Department on the petitioner, as per Rule 3(b) of the Rules.

1. The writ petition challenges the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1070, Public (Telephones II) Department dated 16. 1985 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1643, Public (Telephones II) Department dated 28. 1986. Under the said notification, the lands of the petitioner, to the extent of 28 cents in R.S. No. 124-2B in Thittacheri Village, Nannilam Taluk, are sought to be acquired.

2. According to the petitioner, she had purchased these lands on 16. 1982. As already stated, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 16. 1985 proposing to acquire the lands for the purpose of first respondent Department. The petitioner was served with a notice on 6. 1983 inviting her to file objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. The petitioner had filed her objections. Again, a notice was served proposing to hold an enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act on 29. 1985. The petitioner again sent her objection, which was a repetition of her earlier objections. Overruling the objections of the petitioner, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 28. 1986.

3. In challenging the above acquisition proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner has projected only two points even though in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, several other points have also been raised.

4. The first point argued by the petitioner is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has not been published in the locality in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 1 of the Rules framed under Section 55(1) of the Act. I will straightway deal with the said objection. In the affidavit, it is only stated that no such publication had been made and there was no beat of tom tom in the locality. Therefore, it is pointed out that there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the substance of Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 9. 1985. The argument of Mr. Chandramouli, learned senior counsel, is that Rule 1 above referred to, says that the notice should be published at convenient places in the locality and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar and in the nearest police station. The counter- affidavit does not specifically state that such notices were fixed in those three offices. I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced because it is not stated in the affidavit of the petitioner that the affixture was not made in any of those offices. If the petitioner had stated that the affixture had not been made in any of those offices, the counter-affidavit can be expected to specify the offices in which the notices had been affixed. In the absence of any such categorical averment in the affidavit, the statement in the counter-affidavit that the substance of Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality, has to be accepted to be in conformity with the requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 1 of the Rules. In this view of the matter, the first contention of the petitioner is rejected.

5. The second contention of the petitioner is that enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act had not been conducted in accordance with law. On this, I will do well to refer to the admitted statements in the counter-affidavit. According to the counter-affidavit, the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was fixed to take place on 110. 1985. A notice in this regard was served on the petitioner on 25.09.1985. The objections of the petitioner were received by post on 10. 1985. A copy of the objections was forwarded to the requisitioning body, namely the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Kumbakonam, on 110. 1985. The remarks of the Department were furnished to the petitioner by registered post on 30.11.1985. The petitioner had acknowledged