Prakash Narain, J. ( 1 ) CERTAIN lands including the land belonging to the petitioner in Mauza Tihar were acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4 was issued on February, 13, 1967. Notification under Section 6 was issued on Dec. , 17, 1964. After the usual proceedings contemplated by Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, Collector made Award No. 1916 dated August, 10, 1966 and forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner, i. e. the Collector of the District for information and filing of the award. This was done on December, 5, 1966. After the award had been filed, further action was to be taken on it. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the time when the award was announced under Section 12 (1 ). Accordingly, it became incumbent upon the Collector to give notice of the award to persons interested including the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act. It is said on behalf of the respondents that this notice was sent to the petitioner s address by registered acknowledgement due post, the notice being issued under the signatures of the Collector. It is admitted that the notice was not served personally on the petitioner but someone else had signed the acknowledgement due receipt on his behalf. The petitioner contends that he never received any such notice and got knowledge of the award having been made on November 10, 1967. He, therefore, immediately proceeded to move the Collector for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act and application in this behalf dated November 14, 1967 was filed before the Collector on November 15, 1967. The application was rejected by the Collector, admittedly, without affording any hearing to the petitioner, by a cryptic order saying that the application was time - barred. Another application moved later on by the petitioner for review of this order was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the then incumbent of that post could not review his predecessor s order by which the application had been dismissed as being time-barred. Another application moved later on by the petitioner for review of this order was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the then incumbent of that post could not review his predecessor s order by which the application had been dismissed as being time-barred. ( 3 ) THE short question that first arises for decision on the facts as set out above is whether the notice sent by registered A. D. post to the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of Section 12 (2) was validly issued. If it was validly issued, then a question may arise as to whether the service as effected was valid service. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that a notice of the award was obligatory under Section 12 (2) of the Act. The mode of service, of notices is provided by Section 45 which is: (. . .) ( 5 ) ON a reading of the above section it is clear that what is contemplated is service of notice through a process server. If the notice taken by process server cannot be served personally on the person concerned, it may be served on any adult male member of his family residing with him. If there is no adult male member or none can be found the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business or by fixing copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the court-house etc. Therefore, the ordinary mode of service contemplated is as provided by sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of Section 45. A Collector or a Judge, however, is empowered to direct that a notice may be sent by post in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known address etc. as mentioned in the proviso to section 45. The legislative intent is clear. Normally, notice should be served in the manner provided in sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of Section 45 but power is given to adopt an alternative method of service i. e. by post. In order to adopt this alternative method a direction has to be given by the Collector or the Judge. The legislative intent is clear. Normally, notice should be served in the manner provided in sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of Section 45 but power is given to adopt an alternative method of service i. e. by post. In order to adopt this alternative method a direction has to be given by the Collector or the Judge. Admittedly, in this case no notice was issued or served on the petitioner in the ordinary manner. The only manner in which the notice was issued was by post. There is, admittedly, no separate direction of the Collector as contemplated by the proviso to Section 45. Mr. V. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that because the notice on its face shows that it will be issued by registered A. D. post and is signed by the Collector, it amounts to a direction by him that notice under section 12 (2) be issued in this manner and not in the ordinary manner. I am affraid I cannot agree with this contention. When the legislature speaks of a direction or order to substitute a normal contingency a separate order or direction has to be given and perhaps, even reasons have to be stated as to why the normal mode is not being adopted. ( 6 ) ASSUMING that the notice to the petitioner in this case was valid a question arises as to whether the presumption contemplated under the Evidence Act of due service would be attracted. Mr. Singh submits that it would be attracted, particularly in view of the acknowledgement due card having been signed by someone on behalf of the petitioner. Normally, one may accept this contention but reading the proviso as I do I do not think that the presumption contemplated by the Evidence Act can be attracted in this case. The legislature has made a specific departure in the phraseology of the proviso to Section 45 and has made its intent clear that service by post may be proved by production of the addressee s receipt. The legislature has made a specific departure in the phraseology of the proviso to Section 45 and has made its intent clear that service by post may be proved by production of the addressee s receipt. The production of addressee s receipt cannot be construed to mean production of a receipt signed on behalf of the addressee ]f that was the intention of the legislature then there was no need to enact that addressee s receipt be produced because posting of a notice under the proviso would have been presumed to have been served under the provisions of the Evidence Act. ( 7 ) IN view of my findings above, I come to the conclusion that no valid notice was issued on the petitioner nor was any valid notice served on the petitioner so as to comply with the provisions of Section 12 (2) read with Section 45 of the Act.