Judgment :- The land in question was sought to be acquired for allotment of house sites to Adi Dravidars under the Central Act by publication of Section 4(1) Notification on 7.1.1995. Thereafter, realising the fact that acquisition for Adi Dravidars ought to have been taken under the State Act, as the purpose for which the acquisition was for allotment of house sites to Adi dravidars, notice under Section 4(2) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978(Act 31/1978) (hereinafter called as "The Act") dated 26.10.1995 was issued posting the enquiry on 13.11.1995. Since the petitioner refused to receive the same, further notice dated 16.11.1995 was sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. This Notice was also refused by the petitioner and hence, the enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar on 24.11.1995 and by conduct of inspection also and proposals were sent to the District Collector for publication of the acquisition proceedings. After the proposals were approved by the District Collector, notice under Section 4(1) was published on 31.1.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with the notice dated 14.3.1996 for the conduct of award enquiry on 21.3.1996 which was also refused by the petitioner. However, the petitioner appears to have entered appearance through advocate one Mr. Dharmaraj, by filing vakalath on 19.6.1996 but did not appear in the enquiry. Simultaneously the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition questioning the notice dated 10.4.1996 issued under Form III. 2. The acquisition proceedings are challenged basically on two grounds viz., (1) that the petitioner being the owner of the land has not been issued with Form I notice under Section 4(2) of the Act and (2) in any case, after the sale of the land by the petitioner to one Alagirisami on 2.12.1994 and the said fact was also brought to the notice of the respondent by way of lawyer's notice dated 12.3.1996, much prior to the award Notice, the said Alagirisami has not been issued with the award notice as he has personally interested. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mrs. M.E. Raniselvam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. Insofar as the first submission as to the non service of notice in Form I under Section 4(2), a perusal of the file, which was produced by the learned Government Advocate, shows that the notice dated 26.10.1995 was refused by the petitioner and thereafter, another notice dated 16.11.1995 was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post which was also refused as could be seen from the endorsement. Hence, It is not now open to the petitioner to contend that he was not served with notice in Form I. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected. 5. Coming to the next submission as to the non-service of notice in Form III to Alagirisami, a person interested to receive the amount, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. According to the said Section, every person having any interest in any land acquired under the Act, shall be entitled to receive and be paid an amount as hereinafter provided. 6. From the above Section, it is clear that the amount determined towards compensation shall be paid not only to the owner of the land but also the person interested over the land. In fact, Section 10 of the Act refers to the apportionment of the amount determined. The said Section reads thus: " Where several persons claim to be interested in the in the amount determined, the prescribed authority shall determine the persons who, in its opinion, are entitled to receive the amount and the amount payable to each of them" 7. In this context, Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Rules, 1979, is referable. The said Rule is as follows: " Immediately after the publication of notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 in the District Gazette by the District Collector, the prescribed authority shall serve a notice in Form III to the owner of the land and to all persons interested to appear before him on a day to be specified which shall not be earlier than15 days after the publication of Notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act for enquiry. Notice shall also be displayed at prominent places or near the land under acquisition" Therefore, the above Rule is mandatory on the part of the prescribed authority to serve notice in Form III to the owner and all the persons interested to appear before a day to be specified which shall not be earlier than 15 days after the publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. 8. From the very reading of the Rule, it is clear that notice in Form III is mandatory to all persons interested before determining the amount. 9. Coming to the facts of this case, a lawyer's notice dated 12.3.1996 was sent by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent informing him that he has sold the land to one Alagiriswami on 2.12.1994 itself. From the perusal of the file, it is seen that the said notice has been acknowledged by the 3rd respondent on 13.3.1996. Award notice was issued only on 14.3.1996. Hence it is obvious on the part of the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the person interested viz., Alagiriswami, the subsequent purchaser of the land in question. Award enquiry though was decided to be held on 21.3.1996, in view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained interim orders, no further award proceedings have been held. In terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, the said Alagiriswami, the subsequent purchaser of the land in question from the petitioner is not only a person interested but also in the capacity of owner is entitled to receive compensation. In view of the above, he is also entitled to notice in Form III. Further, challenge to the impugned notice at the instance of the petitioner is not justifiable as the petitioner in the capacity of the erstwhile owner was issued with notice in Form III. If at all, he has got any grievance, he can make the same before the prescribed authority. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned notice. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. If at all, he has got any grievance, he can make the same before the prescribed authority. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned notice. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that no award has been passed so far and in view of the further fact that Alagiriswami, who is the subsequent purchaser of the land in question, is also entitled to notice in Form III, I direct the respondent District Collector to issue notice in Form III regarding Award Enquiry to the said Alagiriswami also within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and determine the amount of compensation in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.9704/1996 is closed.