Judgment : The prayer is for a certiorari to call for the records of the respondents relating to the Gazette Notification of the first respondent in R.O.C.No.89488/96(D8), dated 11. 1997 published at page 2 of Salem District Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.3, dated 20.2.1997 and the notice of the second respondent in R.O.C.No.914/96-A, dated 23. 1997 in Form-III and quash the same insofar as they relate to the petitioner herein on the following allegations: The petitioner owns 0.09.0 hectare in S.No.284/1-C and 14. 0 hectare in S.No.284/2-C both the lands being situated in Panamarathupatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. He is a small farmer and he is depending on the yield from the said lands for his livelihood. On 23. 1997 the second respondent came to the lands made enquiries and only then the petitioner came to know that proceedings had been initiated for acquiring his lands. The petitioner was asked to meet the second respondent in his office on 23. 1997. When he went there he was served with a notice in Form No.III in ROC.No.914/96-A, dated 23. 1997 informing him that the award enquiry would be conducted on the very next day, viz., 23. 1997 at 11 a.m. Immediately on receipt of award enquiry notice in Form No.III, he submitted his objection dated 23. 1997 to the second respondent. He was informed by the second respondent that a decision had already been taken to acquire his lands and therefore the second respondent would not be in position to consider the petitioners objections. .2. It would appear that a Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published by the first respondent in the Salem District Gazette under Notification No.3, dated 20.2.1997. From the notification thus issued it would be seen that the decision was taken to acquire the petitioners lands in R.O.C.No.89488/96(D8), dated 11. 1997. The petitioner was not served with any notice on him or any other person on his behalf under Sec.4(2) of the Act and this is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore it would vitiate the entire proceedings. The notification published in the District Gazette is also not in conformity with the provisions of Sec.4(1) of the Act. Even for the award enquiry reasonable time had not been given. The notification published in the District Gazette is also not in conformity with the provisions of Sec.4(1) of the Act. Even for the award enquiry reasonable time had not been given. The petitioner did not have any time to get legal opinion and submit valid objection. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. .3. On14. 1997 notice of motion was ordered by Jayasimha Babu, J. and while ordering such notice, the learned Judge passed the following order: .“Government Advocate is directed to take notice and secure records in two weeks. Petitioner claims that notice was not served before the notification was issued. If this averment is found to be incorrect. the petitioner will be liable to costs in a sum of Rs.3,000. If the petitioner is still in possession, dispossession not to be effected in the meantime”. 4. In the counter filed in the writ petition it is stated that notice under Sec.4(2) was issued to the petitioner to appear for enquiry which was scheduled to be held on 11. 1996 at the office of the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Salem, and as the petitioner refused to receive the 4(2) notice, the same had been affixed in the Survey stones of the petitioners lands on 110. 1996. The petitioner did not appear for enquiry on 11. 1996 and file any objections to the proposed acquisition. In the result, the Special Tahsildar sent a report to the District Collector on 111. 1996 along with his recommendation and the District Collector based on that report, had approved the 4(1) notification and published the same in the District Gazette on 20.2.1997. Thereafter the notice in Form No.III for award enquiry scheduled to be held on 23. 1997 was received by the petitioner and the petitioner did not appear for the award enquiry on the said day, but had sent an objection petition through his counsel. After considering the objections, the award came to be passed on 23. 1997 in 15/96-97 and the award amount had been deposited in the Principal Sub Court, Salem. Only after the entire acquisition proceedings had become final, the present writ petition has been filed. It is unnecessary to refer to the other allegations in the counter. .5. Records have been produced. 1997 in 15/96-97 and the award amount had been deposited in the Principal Sub Court, Salem. Only after the entire acquisition proceedings had become final, the present writ petition has been filed. It is unnecessary to refer to the other allegations in the counter. .5. Records have been produced. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had indeed received the notice in the forms framed as per Rule 5 of the Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 on 23. 1997 through his wife for enquiry under Sec.4(1) of the Act on 23. 1997. Sec.4(2) of the Act requires that before publishing a notice in Sub-sec.(1) the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in this regard shall call upon the owner or any other person, who in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired. Rule 3(1) of the Rules requires the District Collector or the officer authorised by him in this regard to serve a show cause notice in Form No.I under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 individually on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired and when the owner or any other person interested in the lands resides elsewhere where the lands are situated. The show cause notice shall be sent by registered post (acknowledgment due) to the last known address or any other person interested. Rule 3(2) of the Rules enjoins the Collector that after passing such orders as required by Sun-secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.4, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land, notice in Form No.II to that effect shall be published in the District Gazette. Rule 4 relates to determination of market value of the land and this rule is as per Sec.7 of the Act. Rule 5 provides for procedure for determining the amount. Only at that stage Form.III framed under th Rules will come into operation and notice in Form III is required to be issued. In the records the Form-I notice is not found. Apparently, there is an error in the procedure adopted by the authorities. 6. In the report from the Special Tahsildar to the Collector dated 111. Only at that stage Form.III framed under th Rules will come into operation and notice in Form III is required to be issued. In the records the Form-I notice is not found. Apparently, there is an error in the procedure adopted by the authorities. 6. In the report from the Special Tahsildar to the Collector dated 111. 1996 in page 83 under the heading objections at page 89 it is stated that the landowners refused to receive the notice and hence the notice has been affixed on the survey stones in the property. The landowners did not appear for the 4(1) enquiry and did not file any objection petition. Copy of the notice attempted to be served on the landowners in Form No.1 is not to be seen in the file made available. The actual endorsement made in such a notice has been kept away. Under the Act no particular method is prescribed for service on the landowners. No doubt, in Sec.20 of the Act it is specifically stated that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ceased to apply to any land which is required for the purpose of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 and such land shall be acquired by the Government only in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sec.4(2) of the Act has already been referred to. It empowers the District Collector to call upon the owner or any other person, who in the opinion of the Collector, may be interested in such land to show cause why it should not be acquired. Rule 3 requires the Collector or the officer authorised the Collector or the officer authorised to serve a show cause notice in Form-I under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.2 individually on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired. the form is also given. There is a form prescribed against Form No.I. 7. In Sec.45 of Act I of 1984 the procedure to be followed is specifically provided. In my view, when the State exercises powers of eminent domain basic principles of natural justice have to be followed. The person whose lands are sought to be acquired ought to have proper notice of the proceedings initiated in respect of his lands. 8. In Sec.45 of Act I of 1984 the procedure to be followed is specifically provided. In my view, when the State exercises powers of eminent domain basic principles of natural justice have to be followed. The person whose lands are sought to be acquired ought to have proper notice of the proceedings initiated in respect of his lands. 8. Thequestion as to what is proper service has been dealt with by Nainar Sundaram, J., as the learned Judge then was) In Muthu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, etc. Muthu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, etc. Muthu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, etc. , 1986 Writ L.R. 391. The learned Judge has held as follows: “The service of any notice under the Land Acquisition Act in the manner provided therein is a mandate of law and the due procedure and modalities having been evolved, there cannot be a bypassing of the same by the officials and if they do so, they will be opening the gates for challenge of the proceedings as an illegality, It is not up to the officials to choose modes of service as suit them, if they do not conform to the statutory norms. As contemplated in Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.45, service on the person concerned by delivering or tendering a copy of the notice shall be first attempted, only when such service is not feasible, on the ground that such person cannot be found, the other modes of service as contemplated in Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.45 should be resorted to. If the person cannot be found, service on adult male member of the family should be attempted, and if no such adult male member can be found, then only service by affixture on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business or by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer who signed the notice or in Collectors office or in the court house should be done. In such a case, in addition to the above modes, affixture of the copy of the notice in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired should also be done. In such a case, in addition to the above modes, affixture of the copy of the notice in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired should also be done. The proviso to Sub-sec.(3) says that the notice may, if the Collector or the Judge so directs, be sent by registered post in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of business.” The learned Judge further observed as follows: “Enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act is not an empty formality and notice for such enquiry has got to be served strictly in accordance with the mandates of Sec.45 of the Act. While discountenancing the service of notice in a casual manner without adhering to the rigour of the provisions of the Act, I have opined in Church of South India Trust Association v. The Government of Tamil Nadu , 95 L.W. 87 (S.N.) that the prescriptions of the statute in the matter of service of notices under it should be strictly followed and carried out. It must be satisfied followed and carried out. It must be satisfied that the person concerned could not be found after reasonable and diligent enquiries within the meaning of the Act.” 9. What is stated in the instant case is that the petitioner refused to receive notice. Sec.45 of Act I of 1894 also has not envisaged a situation where the addressee refuses to receive the notice. Indeed, in cases where letters are sent by registered post and the postman makes an endorsement that the addressee refused it’, presumption as to proper service of notice under Sec.27 of the General Clauses Act should be drawn. 10. The question now is whether the same principle can be invoked here. There is no endorsement of refusal available on file. There is nothing to show as to who refused to receive, in which case. In my view there is not enough evidence to raise the promotion requisite to hold that the petitioner had refused to receive the notice and therefore he must be deemed to have knowledge of the contents of the notice. The mere recording by the Special Tahsildar that the petitioner had refused to receive notice, in my view, is not sufficient compliance of requirements regarding service of notice. The mere recording by the Special Tahsildar that the petitioner had refused to receive notice, in my view, is not sufficient compliance of requirements regarding service of notice. There should have been a further attempt in a manner corresponding to Sec.45 of Act I of 1894 for service of notice on the petitioner. As already noticed, Sec.20 of the Act only prohibits invoking the provisions of the Central Act for the purpose specified in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 with regard to acquisition of land under the Act and not with regard to service of notice. The requirements set out in Sec.45, the court view, can be imported for the purpose of service of notice on the owners of lands sought to be acquired under the Act. It is also to be further noticed that affixing a copy of the notice on the survey stones cannot also be said to be proper service. 11. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the point relating to non-service of notice in Form I framed as per Rule 3 (1) of the Rules. The writ petition will stand allowed. The land acquisition proceedings will therefore stand quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions W.M.P.No.8564 of 1997 and W.M.P.No.26632 of 1999 are closed.