Veeraswami, J.- The petitioner complains that he was not given notice and opportunity contemplated by section 10 (5) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. He made a return on 4th February 1963. A draft statement under section 10 (3) was prepared, and the final statement was published on 12th January, 1966, as required by section 12. It appears that even the notification under section 18 has been made on 23rd February 1966 From the counter-affidavit by the State, we find that the notice required under section 10 (5) was served on the petitioner but by affixture. It is contended that this service of notice by affixture is irregular and is not in compliance with the mode of service prescribed by rule 8. That rule by sub-rule (d), says that, in the case of an individual, notice should be served by delivery or tender of the same to the person concerned or his Counsel or authorised agent or to some adult member of the family, or by sending the notice to the person concerned by registered post acknowledgment due. Clause (iv) of sub-rule (d) of rule 8 is to the effect that, if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable service may be effected by affixing the notice in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned. It is not stated for the State that any of the modes was tried and had failed, so as to entitle the Department to take it for granted that service had to be done only by affixture. There is no doubt therefore, that the mode of service on the petitioner was irregular and not in compliance with the requirements of rule 8, as to the manner of service of notice under section 10 (5). Nevertheless, we consider that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed This is because while submitting the returns he had to fill in separate prescribed forms one of which relating to the lands which the petitioner desires to retain subject to the ceiling, and the other mentioning the particulars of lands which he would treat as surplus and available for taking over. In these forms, he gave the name of the village, survey number, extent and other particulars of lands which he desired to retain. In these forms, he gave the name of the village, survey number, extent and other particulars of lands which he desired to retain. He also mentioned, in the other form, the particulars of lands including the village, survey number and extent which he would treat as surplus. The Authorised Officer, in preparing the draft statement and the final statement simply went by the particulars the petitioner himself furnished. In view of this there is clearly no substance in the contention that, because of defective service of the notice under section 10 (5) he was, in any way, prejudiced. What is, however, contended for the petitioner is that he made a mistake in mentioning one or two lands as being surplus which he would in fact like to retain. That is a mistake for which the petitioner himself is responsible, and we do not think, that he can build any argument on that basis and contend that for want of notice he had been prejudiced. The petitions are dismissed but with no costs. V.S. ---------- Petitions dismissed.