Judgment : B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ. 1. This writ appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the notification on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 5A as also Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. 2. Theland of the petitioner, ad-measuring 201?2 cents in Survey No. 131 situate in Andhiyur Village in Udumalpet Taluk of Coimbatore District, has been notified for acquisition along with other lands for the public purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. Draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was gazetted on 5.3.1983. The name of Thangamuthur Gounder, whose legal representatives are the respondents 1 to 8 here, is found in the said notification. Section 5A enquiry was conducted, as urgency clause was not invoked. Then under the said provision, a notice had to be given to the above person but it was not given on the ground that he was absent from the village and that the notice was affixed on the outer door of his house. But it is not disputed that he was not the only person residing in the house and there were several persons but no attempt was made to serve upon them. In spite of several chances being given, the appellants did not produce the records before the learned single Judge so as to satisfy with regard to the service of notice as pleaded by the appellants. 3. Coming to the notice relating to award enquiry, it is admitted by the appellants that no such notice had been given for the reason that they came to know during the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act that the above person was not the owner. But there was no jurisdiction for the appellants, particularly the second respondent, who conducted the award enquiry, not to issue notice to the above person on mere assumption. While it was open to the second appellant not to award compensation in favour of the above person and award compensation in favour of the person whom he thought was the rightful owner to receive compensation or in the alternative to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, there was no escape for the second respondent from issuing notice to the above person viz. Thangamuthu Gounder as his name was admittedly shown in Section 4 (1) notification and the second appellant was bound to issue notice to him in the award enquiry. During enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act, the context is different as the objection is to the act of acquisition and what is to be decided is whether there is a public purpose or not. The scenario is entirely different when it comes to Section 11 of the Act where during award enquiry; the Land Acquisition Officer has to decide, (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. When such is the mandate of the Act, obligating the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice to the person interested, even if he has got information, the observation of audi alteram partem rule is mandatory in the case of a person, whose name has been mentioned in Section 4 (1) notification. For the non-compliance of the above statutory provision of audi alteram partem, both under Section 5A as also Section 11 of the Act, the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition. We fully concur with the same. This writ appeal is thus dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 14177 of 2001 is dismissed.