( 1 ) M. P. MARI Gowda, the petitioner, is the owner of Survey No. 487 of malurpatna village, Channapatna Taluk. It measures 2 acres and 4 guntas. It is an agricultural land. The said land has been acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the Community under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House-sites act, 1972, (Karnataka Act No. 18j 1973), (called shortly 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the acquisition on the sole ground that he has had no notice of the acquisition. ( 3 ) MR. B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader and Counsel for the respondents, submitted before me that the notice of the proposed acquisition was served on the wife of the petitioner since he was not present' in his residence. In proof of his statement, the signature of one 'jayamma' as against the name of 'mari Gowda' obtained on the reverse of the original notice has been produced before me. After perusing the said signature, the petitioner, who was present on the last date of hearing, submitted that it was not the signature of his wife. ( 4 ) THE Grama Sevak of Channapatna Block, who was said to have tendered the notice to Jayamma, has filed an affidavit stating that he went to the house of the petitioner; that the petitioner was not there; that his wife came forward to receive the notice, and, after taking a copy of the same, she signed on the acknowledgment of service endorsed on the original summons. ( 5 ) THE above averments have been controverted by Jayalakshmamma, the wife of the petitioner, in her reply affidavit. She has denied the receipt of any notice intended to be served on her husband. She has stated that the grama Sevak never came to her house to serve or deliver notice on her husband. She has also stated that she never signs as 'jayamma'; but only signs as 'jayalakshmamma' and the signature attributed to her is not her signature. ( 6 ) ON these allegations and counter allegations, this Court has to decide whether there was proper service of notice on the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the land in question. In my view, it is not safe to rely upon any one of these versions. ( 6 ) ON these allegations and counter allegations, this Court has to decide whether there was proper service of notice on the petitioner who is admittedly the owner of the land in question. In my view, it is not safe to rely upon any one of these versions. It is better that I rest my conclusion on the relevant provisions of the CPC, governing service of summons which are applicable to service of notice under the Act. Order V, Rule 15 of the CPC provides that a service may be made on a male member of the addressee on the following contingencies : where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him thereat and there is no likelihood of his being found thereat within a reasonable time, then unless he has an agent duly empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult male member of the family of the defendant (not being a servant) who is residing with him : order V, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides :"person served to sign acknowledgment: Where the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the summons to the defendant personally, or to an agent or other person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgment of service endorsed on the original summons". Order V. Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides :"endorsement of time and manner of service: The serving officer shall, in all cases in which the summons has been served under rule 16, endorse or annex, or cause to be endorsed or annexed, on or to the original summons, a return stating the time when and the manner in which the summons was served, and the name and address of the person (if any) identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of the summons". ( 7 ) FROM the above provisions, it is clear that where the notice issued to a person, cannot be served personally, service may be made on any adult male member of the family of the person who is residing with him. ( 7 ) FROM the above provisions, it is clear that where the notice issued to a person, cannot be served personally, service may be made on any adult male member of the family of the person who is residing with him. But, the serving officer before effecting such service, must make an honest attempt to find the person. If no such attempt is made, then, even if the notice is served on any adult male member of his family, it cannot be said to have been duly served. In the instant case, it is not necessary to make any ruch minor investigation as the serving officer has committed a serious error. He did not serve the notice on any adult male member of the family of the petitioner. He was said to have served the notice on the wife of the petitioner. Unless it is proved that she was duly empowered to accept the notice, the service cannot be held to be valid and in accordance with Order v, Rule 15, I am unable to find any such authority proved in this case. ( 8 ) THAT is not the only infirmity. The serving officer has also not followed Order V Rule 18 of the CPC, the provisions of which are mandatory. After serving the notice on 'jayamma,' assuming that she was the wife of the petitioner, he ought to have submitted a return stating the time when, and the manner in which the notice was served, along with the name and address of the person (if any) identifying the person served and witnessing the delivery or tender of the notice. Admittedly, in this case, there was no such return from the serving officer. In the Absence of such record, the asst Commr ought not to have proceeded on the assumption that there was a due service of notice on the petitioner. I think that this is enough to dispose of the controversy in favour of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute. The Notification issued under S. 3 (4) of the Act, so far as it relates to the land of the petitioner, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IT is made clear to the Counsel for the petitioner that there will be no fresh notice to the petitioner. The Notification issued under S. 3 (4) of the Act, so far as it relates to the land of the petitioner, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IT is made clear to the Counsel for the petitioner that there will be no fresh notice to the petitioner. He will have to file his objections, if any, within thirty days from today and, if any such objection is filed, the Asst commr shall proceed in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .