JUDGMENT K. K. DESAI J.-[After stating the facts and contentions of parties the· judgment proceeds]. In connection with these rival contentions it is necessary to notice the relevant parts of sections 4, 5A, 6, 9 and 45, which run as follows: "4. (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.” Sub-section (2) authorises the Officer to enter upon the premises situate on the properties needed for acquisition and proviso to this sub-section runs: "Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house without previously giving such occupier at least seven days notice in writing of his intention to do so. 5A. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub· section (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be." Sub-section (2) of this section compels the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (3) provides that every person entitled to claim an interest in compensation would have the right to raise objection to acquisition: "6. (1)..when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall he made to that effect….. " Under sub-section (2) the declaration is directed to be published in the Official Gazette. "9. (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. "9. (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests,… (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein,.." Section 45 relating to service of notices runs as follows: "45. (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a notice under section 3-A or 4 by the officer therein mentioned, and in the case of any other notice, .. (2) Whenever it may he practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named.” 2. These are all the relevant provisions in the Act. It is important to notice that power created under sub-section (2) of section 4 to enter upon the properties intended to be acquired must under the proviso to the sub-section be exercised only after service of individual and/or personal notice in writing and after seven days. Section 45 provides that this notice must be delivered to the relevant person. On the contrary the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 is directed to be published in the Official Gazette and to be notified by causing public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. As regards the notification issued under sub-section (1), statute does not direct that notice of the notification should be served on the owners or on persons entitled to claim interest in compensation. The first submission made by Mr. Lalit is accordingly not based on any statutory provision. In this connection, by way of contrast it may be noticed that under sub-section (3) of section 9 the Collector is directed to serve notices on occupiers and those having interest in compensation. Mr. The first submission made by Mr. Lalit is accordingly not based on any statutory provision. In this connection, by way of contrast it may be noticed that under sub-section (3) of section 9 the Collector is directed to serve notices on occupiers and those having interest in compensation. Mr. Joshi is, therefore, right in his submission that if the Legislature had so intended, similar provision could have been made in connection with the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 4. The first contention of Mr. Lalit is accordingly negatived. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners are persons who claim interest in compensation. Apparently for this reason under sub-section (3) of section 9 notices inviting claims for compensation were served on the petitioners. It is, therefore, true that the petitioners are persons as defined under sub-section (3) of section 5A and that the petitioners as such had the right to raise objections to the acquisition of the properties. The petitioners were accordingly entitled to an opportunity of a hearing in accordance with the provisions in sub-section (2) of section 5A in respect of objections, which might have been filed by them. It is also true that notification of declaration under section 6 for the acquisition of the properties could not have been issued except after consideration of the report in respect of the objections filed under section 5A had been made by the Acquisition Officer. Apparently, if the petitioners case is true, the petitioners have lost the opportunity to raise objections under sub-section (1) and an opportunity of hearing such objection under sub-section (2) of section 5A. This fact has resulted, according to the petitioners, because notices in respect of the notification under section 4 had not been served on the petitioners. The question is whether Mr. Lalit is right in his submission that for the above reason, the notification under section 6 is liable to be set aside. In this connection, it is important to remember that objections under section 5A are directed to be filed within 30 days after the issue of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4. Persons claiming interest in compensation would lose and would not be entitled to raise an objection upon expiry of 30 days of issue of notification under sub-section (1) of section 4. Persons claiming interest in compensation would lose and would not be entitled to raise an objection upon expiry of 30 days of issue of notification under sub-section (1) of section 4. The limitation period of 30 days prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5A reflects the anxiety of the Legislature that the proceedings for acquisition should not be frustrated by affording any larger time to the parties concerned in connection with the objection that they may intend to raise. The Legislature must be aware that the right to raise objections under sub-section (I) must depend on the knowledge of the interested parties of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 4. Apparently, persons claiming interest in compensation may remain ignorant of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 4, inspite of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and the public notice put up at convenient places in the locality. Being aware of that situation, the Legislature did not provide for service of notice of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 individually on persons claiming interest in compensation. It is important in this connection to notice that for inviting claims for compensation under section 9, the Legislature by sub-section (3) of that section directed service of notice on individuals claiming interest in compensation. In the context of provisions in sections 4, 5A and 6 we are unable to accept Mr. Lalits submission that the petitioners have been deprived of the right to raise objections and to a hearing in that connection under section 5A. If they have lost such right and/or opportunity, the same must be held to be the result of their negligence in not taking notice of the public notice of the intended acquisition put up at convenient places in the locality in accordance with the provisions in sub-section (1) of section 4. By section 5A the rights were not intended to be created in favour of such negligent parties. In this connection, we have to repeat that we are not in a position to hold that the case of the Government that public notice of the notification under section 4 in this case was put up on the· compound wall of the properties bearing C. T. S. No. 8278/3 and 4. The result of the above discussion is that the submissions made by Mr. Lalit cannot be accepted. 4. The result of the above discussion is that the submissions made by Mr. Lalit cannot be accepted. 4. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the High Court of Mysore in the case of Pillayya v. State1, wherein similar view has been taken regarding the true construction of the effect and provisions of section 5A. In the case of Mohd. Habibullah v. Spl Dy. Collector, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has also taken a similar view of the provisions in the above section. 5. In the result, the rule is discharged. The petitioners are small men and accordingly there will be no order as to costs. Rule discharged.