The petitioners have challenged the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the District Collector, Perambalur District, first respondent, in Perambalur District Gazettee No.23, dated 011. 2000, insofar as it relates to the Acquisition of land comprised in Survey No.387/5A, measuring an extent of 0.81.0 Hectares in Velvimangalam Village and the consequential award made by the Special Tahsildar, Perambalur District, second respondent, in Award No.7/2000-01, dated 05.02.2001.

2. In all these cases, the petitioners have contended that they are the owners of the lands. They have raised Manila, Kambu, Paddy, etc., crops. The 2nd respondent has issued notices, under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Act"), calling for objections, if any, to the acquisition of lands and stated that an enquiry under Section 4 (2) of the Act would be conducted on 28. 2000 at Keezha Perambalur Village Administrative Office. But no such enquiry was conducted on that day in the Village. Therefore, the petitioners went in person to the Office of the second respondent and gave their written objections, stating that as no Harijans in the Village are without house or house site of their own. They also submitted that alternative lands are available in the Village. It is the further case of the petitioners that there was only a formal questioning in the Office of the second respondent and the same would not amount to an enquiry, as contemplated under sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the State Act. According to the petitioners, the so-called enquiry conducted by the second respondent, is farce and it was only an empty formality. Even though, no enquiry under Section 4(2) was conducted, as contemplated under the Act, the 2nd respondent orally informed the Petitioners that their objections would be considered and that the acquisition proceedings would be dropped. But to their shock and surprise, they received notices, under Form III, issued under Rule 5(i), dated 1. 2000, calling upon them to appear for an award enquiry on 21. 2001 at the office of Keezha Perambalur Village Administrative Office. From the above notices, they came to know that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been passed on 11. 2000 by the first respondent. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioners approached the official respondents and requested for copies of Gazette and the enquiry report of the second Respondent. But, the respondents have neither furnished the copy of the enquiry report nor the Gazette Publication. However, the Petitioners attended the enquiry on 21. 2001, putting forth their grievances made earlier before the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, they came to know that an award in Award No.7/2000-2001, dated 2. 2001 has been passed. The copy of the award has not been furnished to the Petitioners. In these circumstances, they have challenged the 4(1) notification.

3. Tmt.Selvi and others, respondents 3 to 9, impleaded as party respondents have filed counter affidavits. Pleadings and submissions are common in all the Writ Petitions and therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.

4. Mr.K.Alagirisamy, Learned enior counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have grossly erred in issuing the impugned Gazette Notification, without adverting to the scope and ambit of Section 4 of the State Act. He further submitted that when Section 4 (2) of the Act r/w. rule 3(1) contemplates show cause notice to the land owners and all the interested persons, notices have not been served to interested persons and hence, the impugned notification and the consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Perambalur District, second respondent herein, has failed to conduct an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act. According to him, no enquiry