Judgment : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Jagadeesan, J.: 1. Appellants are the legal representatives of the original owner of the land, which was sought to be acquired by the respondents. 2. Admittedly the notification under Sec.4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 7. 1986. Thereafter, the original owner was served with a notice for enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The original owner, the predecessor of the appellants herein, filed the objection through power of Attorney before the Land Acquisition Officer on 19. 1986. Thereafter, the objection filed by the original owner was over-ruled and the declaration under Sec.6 of the said Act was made on 26. 1987. The appellants herein have filed the W.P.No.7754 of 1987 challenging in acquisition proceedings on the ground that they were not given any notice for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Further it has been stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition that the Rule 5(b) of the Pondicherry Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 had not been complied with. 3. The learnedsingle Judge by his order dated 2. 1997 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants have been served with due notice, with regard to the enquiry Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the compliance of Rule 5(b) of the Pondicherry Land Acquisition Rules, 1963, which requires that the objections of the land owner have to be forwarded to the requisitioning body and after receipt of the reply from the requisitioning body, the Land Acquisition Officer has to hold an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In this case, admittedly the objections of the appellants had been forwarded to the Social Welfare Department, which ultimately over-ruled the objections of the appellants. Thereafter, Sec.6 declaration was made, without holding any enquiry in compliance of the Rule 5(b) of the abovesaid Rules. Hence the entire land acquisition proceedings is vitiated. 5. Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry State contended that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 7. 1986, Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act requires the land owners to submit their objections within 30 days from the date of the publication. Hence the entire land acquisition proceedings is vitiated. 5. Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry State contended that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 7. 1986, Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act requires the land owners to submit their objections within 30 days from the date of the publication. Hence, the last date for the receipt of the objection from the land owner, in this case, is at the most 8. 1986. In the case on hand, the land owners themselves admit that the objections were submitted only on 19. 1986, which is beyond the statutory period, and hence such objections need not be considered. He also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in Velusamy and another v. The Government of Tamil Nadu by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Departments, Chennai and another, (2000)1 C.T.C. 530 . 6. Wecarefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. A perusal of the learned single Judges order does not reveal that the present contention has been raised before him. It seems that only contention relating to notice for Sec.5-A enquiry, had been raised before the learned single Judge. But, since the land owners have stated with regard to the compliance of Rule 5(b) of the said Rules in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, we are inclined to entertain the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the objections were submitted by the land owners beyond the period of 30 days, which is in contravention of the requirement of Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In such cases, the question is whether those objections are to be considered. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Velusamy and another v. The Government of Tamil Nadu by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Departments, Chennai and another, (2000)1 C.T.C. 530 held that only if the objections have been received within 30 days such objections have to be forwarded to the requisitioning body and the remarks have to be called for. Otherwise, the requirement of the Rule 3(b). of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules need not be followed. The said rule is almost in pari materia with the Rule 5(b) of the Pondicherry Land Acquisition Rules. Otherwise, the requirement of the Rule 3(b). of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules need not be followed. The said rule is almost in pari materia with the Rule 5(b) of the Pondicherry Land Acquisition Rules. Following the said principle, laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the objections filed by the appellants herein beyond the period of 30 days need not be considered. 8. Themere forwarding of such objections to the requisitioning body and obtaining the remarks may not contemplate the necessary compliance of the Rule 5(b) of the Pondicherry Land Acquisition Rules, especially when the objections, submitted by the appellants, are barred by limitation and are not in conformity with Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, we are confirming the order of dismissal of the writ petition, for the reasons given by us. 9. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs, Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.