The service of notice under the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory, and the enquiry under Section 5-A must adhere to statutory formalities.

1. The petitioner as well as the respondents in these writ petitions are one and the same, the learned counsel for both sides have advanced common arguments in support of their respective case, therefore, by consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

2. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners seek to quash the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called as the Act, published vide G.O. Ms. No.173 dated 08.10.2012 issued by the first respondent and the consequential declaration made under Section 6 in G.O. Ms. No.243 dated 23.09.2013 in so far as they relate to acquisition of the petitioners' land are concerned.

3. For the purpose of establishment of a Fisheries University and Institute of Fisheries Technology in Nagoor (Muttam) Village, Nagapattinam Taluk and District, the respondents have proposed to acquire lands measuring a total extent of 36.42.5 hectares in various survey numbers owned by various persons, including the lands of the petitioners. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued vide G.O. Ms. No.173 dated 08.10.2012 and ultimately the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23.09.2013. According to the petitioners, they were not served with any notice even though they have purchased the lands in question during 2009/2010 by various sale deeds and therefore, they seek to quash the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to their land.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would mainly contend that the respective writ petitioners have purchased the lands in question by means of registered sale deeds commencing from 09.10.2009 to 15.02.2010. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, even though the petitioners have purchased the lands during October 2009 to February 2010 itself, in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 08.10.2012, the name of the petitioners have not been incorporated and no notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act was given to them. Equally, the petitioners were not issued with any notice for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Further, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners in the enqujiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section was made under Section 6 of the Act on 23.09.2013. In the meantime, on 05.06.2012, patta was issued to the petitioners under Patta No.808 and 809. Subsequent to issuance of patta only, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued and published on 17.10.2012. Consequentially, the declaration was made in the Government gazzette on 23.09.2013. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act are liable to be set aside for non-service of notice to the petitioners.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Muthu vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Madras – 2) reported in 1986 Writ Law Reporter 391 to contend that the service of notice contemplated under Section 45 of the Act is mandatory under law. It was further pointed out that only after an attempt to serve the notice on the party to the acquisition proceedings, resort should be made to serve notice by affixture.

6. The learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (S. Muthurajan and 3 others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai and another) reported in 2001 (4) CTC 12 and 2001 (3) MLJ 357 wherein it was held that when the name of the owner or person in occupation of the land has not been mentioned in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, even though there was a change in the revenue registry and the correspondin