Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Though the matter is listed for considering the question of injunction, since the same question is involved and the counter filed in the Writ Petition, on consent of the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The question relates to land acquisition proceedings. Bereft of unnecessary details, suffice it to note that on earlier occasion, the land acquisition proceedings had been challenged on the ground that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with while passing the award. Writ Petition No.3098 of 2000 was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court and liberty was given to the respondent to proceed further to pass fresh award in accordance with law. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even after the said order was passed, the respondent, without giving any fresh notice to the petitioners, passed an award, which is being impugned in the present Writ Petition. 5. The assertion of the petitioners that notice has not been served has been sought to be countered by the respondents in the following words : ".......As per the directions of this Hon'ble Court, fresh Award enquiry was conducted on 19.10.2000 and Award was passed in accordance with law on 20.10.2000 and possession taken on 20.10.2000 itself and house-site pattas were also granted to 360 beneficiaries..........." 6. Even though no specific denial has been made regarding the non-service of notice, the learned Special Government Pleader, with reference to the record of the Government, has submitted that the record indicates that the notice was affixed on the residence of the petitioners. This statement has been challenged by the counsel for the petitioners. Even accepting that it was so affixed, the question remains to be considered is, whether the notice has been served as contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act. 7. Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act contains the provision regarding the service of notice, which is extracted hereunder : Service of notices :- (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a notice under Section 4, by the officer therein mentioned, and, in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the Collector or the Judge. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named. (3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him; and, if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door or the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the Court-house, and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired: Provided that, if the Collector or Judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of business and (registered under Sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (VI of 1998)) and service of it may be proved by the production of the addressee’s receipt.” 8. The learned Special Government Pleader, relied on the mode prescribed under Section 45 (3). A perusal of the said provision makes it clear that when a person cannot be found, the service can be made by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house. In the present case, the Office Note indicates as if the person refused to accept. Even assuming that sub-section 3 is applicable, yet, notice has to be in strict compliance with sub-section 3, as it has been held repeatedly by this Court that the provisions contained in Section 45 relating to service of notice are mandatory. In this case, it is conceded by the learned Special Government Pleader that the notice had been affixed only on the part of the house, but no notice had been affixed in any conspicuous part of the land to be acquired. 9. A perusal of Section 45 sub-section 3 makes it clear that in addition to fixing the copy on the outer door of the house, it is also necessary to fix the copy in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired. The use of the expression "and also" makes it clear that such method is to be adopted in addition to the other method of notice as already contemplated. The use of the expression "and also" makes it clear that such method is to be adopted in addition to the other method of notice as already contemplated. Hence, it cannot be said that notice, as contemplated under Section 45 (3), has been served. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also placed reliance on two decisions of this Court one reported in 1999 (1) M.L.J.42 (Ramalingam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu) and the other passed in W.P.No.4177 of 2000 dated 06.11.2001 that the notice should have been sent by registered post. 11. Even otherwise, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the so-called refusal must be taken with a pinch of salt, as the petitioners had themselves filed the earlier Writ Petition and it would not be expected that the petitioners had refused notice. It is not necessary to express any opinion on this aspect, as, in my opinion, notice has not been served, as contemplated under Section 45 (3) of the Act. 12. In such view of the matter, the award passed is quashed. It would be open to the respondents to pass fresh award in accordance with law, subject to the question of limitation, as contemplated under Section 11-A along with explanation of the Land Acquisition Act. 13. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.is closed.