Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents acquiring his land for providing house sites for Irulur community people living in Byrapalli Village, Vaniyambadi taluk. The acquisition proceedings were initiated under The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, (Act XXXI of 1978), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The only ground on which the petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings is that the mandatory provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act was not complied with. Sub Section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act contemplates the service of notice calling upon the owners to make their objections and to show cause as to why their land cannot be acquired before the issue of a notice under Section 4 (1) of the said Act. The issue of notice calling upon the owner to show cause being mandatory provision, the non compliance of the same would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 2. On the contrary the learned Government Pleader contended that since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bangalore, no notice was served on him, however, the notice contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act was served on the tenants of the land which is sought to be acquired. Apart from that, the petitioner had appeared for the award inquiry and demanded higher rate of compensation and also sought for a reference under Section 10 of the said Act to the Court for determination of the appropriate compensation. Hence, in view of the conduct of the petitioner having received the compensation amount without prejudice to the right to claim enhanced compensation, it is to be held that the petitioner has no grievance with regard to the acquisition and he is interested only in the enhancement of the compensation. 3. I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. Sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Act required the District Collector, to 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. In this provision, it is stated that the "District Collector shall call upon" before publishing a notice under Sub section (1) of Section 4. In this provision, it is stated that the "District Collector shall call upon" before publishing a notice under Sub section (1) of Section 4. Admittedly, the respondent did not serve any notice on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his land should not be acquired. The only reason given by the respondent in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is residing at Bangalore. There is no dispute that the revenue records clearly reveals that the permanent address of the petitioner is at Bangalore. 4. Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act, the District Collector or the Officer authorised by him shall serve a show cause notice in form 1 under sub Section (2) of Section 4 notifying on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired. It is further contemplated that if the owner or any other person interested in the land resides elsewhere than the place where the land is situated, show cause notice shall be served by registered post (with acknowledgement due) to the last known address of the owner or any other person interested. Hence, Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act envisages the service of the notice by registered post to the owner of the land calling upon him to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. In case if the owner resides outside, then the service is contemplated by way of a registered post with acknowledgement due. Admittedly, this procedure has not been followed by the respondent. There is no explanation forthcoming from the respondents for not following the said procedure. Hence, there is no dispute that there is violation of the mandatory provision of the statute in the procedure adopted by the respondents which would vitiate the acquisition proceedings and as such the acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Rule NISI already issued is made absolute. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.