There is no prescription of mode of service of notice for acquisition under State Act.

Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the land acquisition notification issued under section 4(1) of the 1978 Act dated 12. 1997 published in the Madurai district Gazettee dated 12. 1997.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.

(a) Petitioner purchased agricultural lands to an extent of 9.72 acres in S.No.40 in Ayattampalli Village, Madurai District, by registered sale deed dated 211. 1976 and the said land is an agricultural land. According to the petitioner, as Kartha of the Joint family, he obtained loan from the Melur Co-Operative Land Development Bank Limited in the year 1978 for digging well for irrigation purposes and the entire loan was repaid. The extent of the land being small, petitioner is treated as small farmer by the Government of Tamil nadu.

(b) The third respondent issued notice on 11. 1997 under rule 3(1) and Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978) intending to acquire 0.90.0 Hectares of land of the petitioner in the said survey No.40 and the same was received by the petitioner on 12. 1997. In the said notice, it was stated that objections if any, should be furnished on 12. 1997 at 3.30 p.m. According to the petitioner, he received the said notice at 4.30 p.m. on 12. 1997 and immediately he rushed to the office of the third respondent and submitted objections and prayed for dropping the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the petitioner and his family members have no other land for their livelihood and they are treated as small farmers doing cultivation in the said lands and he is unemployed.

(c) Petitioner states that after receipt of the said objection, the third respondent informed that fresh date of enquiry will be intimated and the petitioner will be heard in person on the basis of the objection filed on 12. 1997. Thereafter petitioner received notice issued under Section 5(1) for fixing compensation amount, for which enquiry was proposed to be conducted on 2. 1998. In the said enquiry also petitioner objected the acquisition of land in question and at that time petitioner was informed that the acquisition proceedings were completed and the notification under section 4(1) is published in the District Gazettee on 12. 1997.

(d) Thereafter, petitioner searched for the Gazettee notification and he could get the same only during the first week of July, 1998, and the same is challenged in this writ petition contending that the respondents finalised the proceeding by issuing Gazettee notification without holding any enquiry or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the notice fixing enquiry on 12. 1997 at 3.30 p.m. was received by the petitioner only on 12. 1997 at 4.30 p.m. and immediately petitioner rushed to the office of the third respondent and submitted his objection and the same is not considered and the acquisition was finalised on the very next day i.e., on 12. 1997 itself. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents were in pre-determined mind and without considering the objections, petitioners land is sought to be acquired through the impugned order.

.3. The respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that Section 4(1) notification was published in Madurai District Gazettee on 12. 1997 relating to the petitioners land, after the same was approved by the second respondent on 12. 1997. It is further stated that Section 4(2) notice was issued by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 11. 1997 and the notice was affixed on the door of the house of the petitioner as he was out of station. It is also stated that no objection was given by the petitioner as stated in the affidavit and the notice could not be served on the petitioner as he was not available and therefore he could not be enquired. Since no objection was received from the petitioner, the acquisition was finalised and gazettee notification was issued under section 4(1) of the Act 31 o