Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India are for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the G.O.Ms.No.1767, Revenue, dated 19.9.1988 issued under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the properties. The petitioner in W.P.No. 12840 of 1988 purchased 1800 Sq.ft. in S.No. 121/14 on 4.7.1987 under the document No.553 of 1987 dated 9.7.1987 from the petitioners in W.P.No. 14852 of 1988. The Government notified the intention to acquire the properties mentioned in these writ petitions under Sec.4(1) of the Act by the G.O.Ms.No.1378, Revenue, dated 4.7.1987 and the same was published in the Gazette on 13.9.1987. The petitioner in W.P.No. 15274 of 1988 has purchased 100 sq.ft. in S.No.121/20-A under sale deed dated 5.10.1987. through the document No.712 of 1987. As this sale deed is dated 5.10.1987, subsequent to the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, the petitioner in W.P.No. 15274 of 1988 will contend that he is the owner of the property and he is entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners in other writ petitions are the owners of the other lands. After the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, there was an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. Except the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 12840 of 1988 and 15274 of 1988, the representatives of the other petitioners participated in the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and they filed their objections also. The Land Acquisition Officer rejecting their objections, issued the notification under Sec.6 of the Act declaring the lands covered under the Notifications are required for the public purposes, in G.O.Ms.No.1767, Revenue, dated 19.9.1988. It is against this notification, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the validity of the notification on various grounds. 3. The contentions of the petitioners are four-fold and they are as follows: Firstly, the petitioner in W.P.No. 12840 of 1988 was the owner of the land in S.No.121/14 even on the date when the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was made, but his name does not find a place in the records even though the notice for the enquiry under Sec.5-A was not sent and therefore, the notification in G.O.Ms.No. 1767, dated 19.9.1988 declaring that his land is required for public purposes is illegal as the provisions of the Act were not complied with. The second contention is that though the Government published the notification G.O.Ms.No. 1378, Revenue, dated 4.7.1987, only on 30.9.1987, Tamil Dailies had published this intention of the Government to acquire the lands even on 23.9.1987 and therefore as held by the courts, the notification is not valid. The third contention is that when the alternate site has been suggested by the landowners and the Government had also proposed originally to acquire the lands in the riverbed close to Kushasthali, the Government had not applied its mind with regard to the alternate site proposed by the land owners and for the non-application of the mind, this declaration under Sec.6 of the Act is illegal. The fourth objection is that there was no publication in the locality as required under Sec.4(l) of the Act which is a mandatory provision and on this ground also the notification mentioned above is to be quashed. 4. With regard to the objections raised by the petitioner in W.P.No. 12840 of 1988, the fact that he purchased the lands in S.No. 121/14 even on 4.7.1987 and registered on 9.7.1987 is not in dispute. The publication for the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was made only on 13.9.1987. Therefore, admittedly he was the owner even on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. However, his name is not included in the records. Probably, the mutations were not carried out in the Government records in view of the fact that the purchase was made only on 4.7.1987 just two months prior to the publication. As the land acquisition was carried out by the records maintained by the Revenue Department, the name of the petitioner in W.P.No. 12840 of 1988 was not included in the records. Therefore, subsequently, when the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was conducted, notice was not served to him. But the evidence is to the effect that the vendors who are the petitioners in W.P.No. 14852 of 1988 have mentioned in their objections that they have sold 1,800 sq.ft. in S.No.121/14 to the petitioner in W.P.No.12840 of 1988 and the enquiry officer has also recorded this particulars furnished by the petitioners in W.P.No. 14852 of 1988. But the evidence is to the effect that the vendors who are the petitioners in W.P.No. 14852 of 1988 have mentioned in their objections that they have sold 1,800 sq.ft. in S.No.121/14 to the petitioner in W.P.No.12840 of 1988 and the enquiry officer has also recorded this particulars furnished by the petitioners in W.P.No. 14852 of 1988. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer during the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, was informed that the petitioner in W.P.No. 12840 of 1988 was the owner of the property even on the date of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. However, to steps were taken to issue notice even at that stage to enable the petitioner in W.P.No.12840 of 1988 to participate in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. It is held by the Full Bench of this Court in Thanikavelu v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition and another , 1989 Writ L. R. 89 that when it is brought to the notice of the Collector by the erstwhile land owner or any other person that there is an interested person in the land, the Collector as a statutory functionary is bound to afford an opportunity to the person who is interested in the land. In this case, in spite of the fact that the enquiry officer came to know that the petitioner in W.P.No. 12840 of 1988 was the owner of the land, no steps were taken to afford opportunity to him to participate in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. Therefore, without giving notice to him for the enquiry, under Sec.5-A, the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act is quite illegal and, therefore, the notification in respect of his land has to be certainly quashed. This does not take away the right of the State to rectify the mistake and proceed with the acquisition in compliance with the provisions of the Act. The next objection is similar for the petitioner in W.P.No. 15274 of 1988 who is admittedly a subsequent purchaser. This does not take away the right of the State to rectify the mistake and proceed with the acquisition in compliance with the provisions of the Act. The next objection is similar for the petitioner in W.P.No. 15274 of 1988 who is admittedly a subsequent purchaser. The learned Government Advocate would submit that when this petitioner has purchased property subsequent to the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, he cannot be considered to be a person interested in the property and as held in Ajay Krishnan Shingal v. Union of India and others , (1997)1 C.T.C. 156 the person purchasing property after declaration under Sec.6 does not get any right to challenge the validity of the notification under Sec.4(l) and the title of claim of such person is void and therefore his only remedy is to claim compensation in respect of lands acquired based on his vendors title. In view of this decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner in W.P.No. 15274 of 1988 is not entitled to any remedy and his petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The other remaining petitions have been filed by the owners of the lands and as mentioned above, the remaining two contentions raised by them are that the alternate site proposed by them was not considered by the Government, and that there was no publication in the locality as contemplated under Sec.4( 1) of the Act. With regard to the first one viz., the alternate site, the affidavits of the petitioners read that the river-bed is a poramboke land and originally that was the place proposed for the construction of the Taluk Office, but the Government without applying its mind has issued the notification for the acquisition of these lands. During the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, the land owners have mentioned that Kushasthali river bed is a poramboke land in which the Taluk office could be constructed and compensation also need not be paid for taking over of that land for the scheme and therefore, their lands could be exempted from the acquisition. The Enquiry Officer has considered this proposal in his report, made by the landowners and he would observe that the proposed site is a far off place and the Taluk Office is required in the middle of the town and therefore, the far off place cannot be chosen for the construction of the Taluk Office. The Enquiry Officer has considered this proposal in his report, made by the landowners and he would observe that the proposed site is a far off place and the Taluk Office is required in the middle of the town and therefore, the far off place cannot be chosen for the construction of the Taluk Office. Therefore, even in the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer after enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, he has rejected the suggestion made by the landowners with regard to the alternate site. The alternate site is not only a far off place from the town but it is a river-bed where there would be inundation during the rainy season. Anyhow, the Land Acquisition Officer after applying his mind, has submitted his report to the Government that it is not a suitable site. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is nothing to show that the Government had applied its mind with regard to the alternate site suggested by the land owners and for the non-application of its mind in respect of this aspect, the subsequent declaration under Sec.6 is not valid. This contention is resisted by the learned Government Advocate who would submit that when the report of the Land Acquisition Officer has been accepted by the Government, as no other suggestion has been given by the Government, it has to be taken that the report has been accepted in full and therefore the findings of the officer therein as to the alternate site also has been considered by the Government and rejected for the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer. If really the Government thought of the alternate site, they could have directed the officials to inspect the site and called for any further report from the concerned Department, for the possibility and feasibility of the construction of the Taluk Office in that place. No steps were taken in that directed by the Government to the report of the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, it has to be taken that the Government had also accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer as to the alternate site proposed by the landowners. Hence, this plea also does not stand to quash the notification mentioned in the petition. 6. Therefore, it has to be taken that the Government had also accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer as to the alternate site proposed by the landowners. Hence, this plea also does not stand to quash the notification mentioned in the petition. 6. Then with regard to the last ground viz., the lack of publication in the locality, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there were no publication in the locality as contemplated under the Act and Rule 1 of the Act specifies the places also where copy of the publication has to be affixed and according to Rule 1 when the publication was made in the locality, the copies thereof shall be affixed in the offices of the Collector, Tahsildar and in the nearest Police Station, but in this case absolutely there is no evidence to accept that the copies were affixed either in those places or publication was made in the locality. But the learned Government Advocate would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer (R.D.O.) has forwarded the request to the Tahsildar to effect the publication for which the Tahsildar in his letter 6994/87/ 1 / dated 24.10.1987 would reply” "TAMIL" and the learned Government Advocate would submit that this letter would show that the publication was made in the locality even though the Tahsildar has not specified the place and the manner in which the publication was effected and this letter is a proof for the publication. As held in the catena of deci-. sions that the publication under Sec.4(1) in the locality, is a mandatory procedure which has to be complied with, without any deviation. In Vembuli Naicker v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1992)1 MLJ. 26 this Court has held that if public notice of the substance of the notificationunder Sec.4(1) was not given in the locality as contemplated under Rule 1 of the Rules framed under Sec.55 of the Act, the acquisition proceedings will vitiate the entire proceedings as the notification under Sec.4(1) is mandatory. In State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib , A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2361: (1973)3 S.C.C. 196 the Apex Court has considered the scope of Sec.4(1) of the Act. In State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib , A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2361: (1973)3 S.C.C. 196 the Apex Court has considered the scope of Sec.4(1) of the Act. The Apex Court would observe that in the case of a notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the law has prescribed that in addition to the publication of the notification in an Official Gazette, the Collector must also give publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality and unless both these conditions are satisfied, Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be said to have been complied with as the publication of the notices in the locality is a mandatory requirement. In Collector of Allahabad v. Raj Ram , A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1622 the Apex Court would observe as follows: “A bare perusal of Sec.4(1) clearly shows that in order to comply with the statutory requirements therein set out, a notification stating therein, that land which is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose, has to be published in the Official Gazette. The second part of the sub-section provides that the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality in which the land proposed to be acquired is situated. Both the conditions are held by a catena of decisions to be mandatory. Whether the second condition is mandatory or directory is no more res integra ”. In view of these decisions, the publication in the locality is a must without which the further proceedings under the Act cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. The learned Government Advocate would submit that there need not be a literal construction of the statute with regard to the publication under Sec.4(1) and he relies upon a Bench decision of this Court in Sundara Naicker v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1996)2 C.T.C. 746 .‘The Bench has taken the view that literal construction of the statute for the publication under Sec.4(1) should be avoided as such construction would result in defeating the object of the provision. We are not making any interpretation with regard to the publication, but law requires that there must be publication in the locality. Unless this is complied with, the notification cannot be said to be valid under law. We are not making any interpretation with regard to the publication, but law requires that there must be publication in the locality. Unless this is complied with, the notification cannot be said to be valid under law. However the learned Government Advocate would refer to Ajay Krishan Shingal v. Union of India Ajay Krishan Shingal v. Union of India Ajay Krishan Shingal v. Union of India , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2677 wherein the Suprme Court would observe that the presumption has to be drawn under Sec. 114(e) of the Evidence Act as to the official acts said to have been done properly unless, it was proved otherwise and if an endorsement has been made by a peon that he affixed the copy of the notification at a conspicuous place in the locality, it will amount to the compliance in substance. According to the learned Government Advocate, when the Apex Court has held that the presumption must be drawn as to the official act and even if an endorsement is made by a peon that he affixed the notification in the conspicuous place of the locality, it will amount to sufficient compliance; that in this case, as the Tahsildar himself has mentioned in his letter that the publication was effected as requested by the Land Acquisition Officer, it will amount to sufficient compliance and no more evidence is required for publication. In that case, the endorsement is to the effect that the proclamation shall be got down through chowkidar and thereafter a report was submitted to the effect that one copy was affixed outside the Court of the Land Acquisition Collector, another notice was affixed outside the court of the Deputy Commissioner and one more copy of the notice was affixed outside the Tahsildar Office at Kashmere Gate and one more copy was affixed at the spot in the village Naraina through the lumberdar. Therefore, even though the chowkidar himself, has sent a report, he has specifically mentioned that he affixed the copy of the notices in the Land Acquisition Court, Tahsildars Office, and also in the spot at the village itself. When he has specifically mentioned the places where the notice and its copies were affixed, then certainly the presumption must be drawn under Sec. 114(e) of the Evidence Act that they were affixed in the manner required under law. When he has specifically mentioned the places where the notice and its copies were affixed, then certainly the presumption must be drawn under Sec. 114(e) of the Evidence Act that they were affixed in the manner required under law. But, in this case, the Tahsildar has not even mentioned where, when and in what manner the publication was effected by him. The way in which he has replied would show that sitting in the office, he has sent this letter to the Land Acquisition Officer stating that he had effected the publication. If really the publication was effected either in the locality where the lands acquired are situated or in any other conspicuous place, where the public had access, certainly, he could have easily mentioned the places where he caused the notice to be published. Further Rule ¡ also requires the affixure of the copy in the Collectors Office, Tahsildars Office and also in the nearest police station. Absolutely there is nothing to show that this Rule was complied with by affixing the copy of the notice. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can we presume under Sec. 114(e) of the Evidence Act that the Authorities had complied with the mandatory provision with regard to the publication of the notice under Sec.4(l) in the locality where the lands acquired are situated or in the other places specified under the rule. As no other evidence is forthcoming, apart from the letter of the Tahsildar dated 24.10.1987, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate that this mandatory provision was complied with by publishing in the locality. Once this defect is accepted, then all the subsequent proceedings are vitiated as held by this Court. Therefore, on this ground alone these petitioners barring the petitioner in W.P.No. 15274 of 1988 are entitled to succeed. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos. 12840 of 1988, 15308 of 1988, 14852 of 1988 and 15263 of 1988 are allowed quashing the notification G.O.Ms.No.1767 Revenue, dated 19.9.1988 and all proceedings subsequent to the notification under Sec.4(1). The Writ Petition No. 15274 of 1988 is dismissed. The State Government is within its powers to issue fresh notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act if they want to proceed with the acquisition of these lands. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, No costs.