ORDER: The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development (UD III), dated 9.3.1994 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 2 dated 6.4.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.595, Housing and Urban Development (UD III(1), dated 28.6.1995 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part II, Section 2, dated 28.6.1995 in respect of lands in Survey No.139/4-B measuring 0.02.0 hectares in Manjambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet M.G.R. District. 2. Heard both sides. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in Survey No.139/4-B measuring 0.02.0hectares, having purchased the same on 24.2.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that in the notification issued by the respondents under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, her name was not included; that the paper publications effected in the Tamil Dailies namely "Adhistam" and "Kumari Murasu" are not at all in circulation in the area. Further, after receipt of the representation from the requestioning body, no enquiry was conducted by the respondents and prayed for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings. 3. Mrs.Malarvizhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the proposals relating to acquisition proceedings were forwarded to the Government on 30.1.1992 and at that time, the lands were in the name of the original owner, hence the petitioner’s name was not included in the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, 4(1) notification was issued on 9.3.1994, which was gazetted on 6.4.1994. Paper publications were made in Tamil dailies namely, "Adhistam" and "Kumari Murasu" on 15.6.1994 and the substance of the same was published in the locality on 30.6.1994. The notice under Sec.4(A) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 11.10.1994 to which petitioner has sent her objections on 8.11.1994. The enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act was conducted on 10.11.1994 and on the same day the petitioner has submitted her objection for the same. Thereafter, all the objections were forwarded to the requestioning body namely the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the requestioning body has sent their remarks on the objections received from the land owners on 21.3.1995, which was also communicated to the petitioner on 10.5.1995. Thereafter, all the objections were forwarded to the requestioning body namely the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the requestioning body has sent their remarks on the objections received from the land owners on 21.3.1995, which was also communicated to the petitioner on 10.5.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority on 25.5.1995 at 11.00 a.m. Admittedly, the petitioner has also appeared before the said authority on that day and on 25.5.1995, the objections made by the petitioner were overruled and the same was also communicated to the petitioner on the same day i.e., 25.5.1995. Sec.6 declaration as gazetted on 28.6.1995 and the substance of the same was also published in the locality on 29.6. 1995. An award No.3 of 1977 was passed on 27.6.1997 and the compensation was also deposited into the Court. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the respondents have complied with all the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Act and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. It is evident from the above that after forwarding the objections to the requestioning body, no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules 1991. Rule 4(b) and (c) runs as follows: "Rule 4 (b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5-A, the Collector shall fix date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form ‘B’ to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. (c) On the basis fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector, or a person authorised by him in this behalf, or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land." 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was the owner of the property as on the date of issuance of 4(1) notification, but her name was not included in the said notification. The enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act was also not conducted as per the provisions of Rule 4(b) and (c) of the Land Acquisition Rules. 6. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the paper publications relating to 4 (1) notification was made in Tamil Dailies namely "Adhistam" and "Kumari Murasu" which according to the petitioner is not at all in circulation. I agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the land acquisition proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. It is open to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings against the petitioner afresh in terms of the Act and Rules, if they are so advised.