Judgment :- The challenge in this writ petition is to Section 4(1) notification dated 5.12.1997 of the 2nd respondent published in Tiruvannamalai District Gazette in proceedings No. Na.Ka.K-1 /9930/97 dated 15.12.1997 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. By the impugned notification, the land belonging to the petitioner in S.No. 246 to an extent of 0.40.0 hectares in Venmani Village is sought to be acquired under the provisions of Act 31 of 1978. While assailing the notification impugned in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the various objections raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 16.10.96 were not considered by the 3rd respondent; that while the enquiry was originally fixed on 18.10.96 it was not really held on that day and it was adjourned to 3.11.1996 at 10.00 a.m. with respect to which notice was served on him on 1.11.96 and that no enquiry was really held on that day. 3. It was also contended that in the impugned notification, no award under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be made by the 2nd respondent. After the issuance of Rule NISI, the records were produced by the 3rd respondent in this Court. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader made his submissions with particular reference to the records placed before this Court and contended that the enquiry was really held only on 13.11.1996 and that the petitioner also participated in the enquiry. Learned Additional Government Pleader pointed out that on the date of the enquiry the petitioner himself made an oral statement which was recorded in which the petitioner has also subscribed his signature. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader further pointed out that the 3rd respondent considered each and every one of the objections raised by the petitioner and however, found that the said objections could not be accepted as the requirement of acquisition outweighed the objections raised by the petitioner. 6. On a perusal of the records, in particular, the statement given by the petitioner on the date of enquiry namely 13.11.1996 before the 3rd respondent and also the report of the 3rd respondent, pursuant to the enquiry held on 13.11.1996, I am convinced that the petitioner was not only given due opportunity by the 3rd respondent, but all his objections were duly considered in the report submitted by the 3rd respondent. Unlike the other cases, in the case on hand, I find that the 3rd respondent had applied his mind while submitting his report to the 2nd respondent. However, in the file I could not find the award of the 2nd respondent based on the report of the 3rd respondent. In that context, learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the 3rd respondent being a 'prescribed authority' by virtue of G.O.Ms.1628 dated 21.9.79 read along with the amended notification in G.O.Ms.97 Social Welfare dated 8. 2.1980 he was fully competent to pass the final Award under Section 4 for acquiring the land and therefore the impugned notification based on such orders of the 3rd repondent in deciding to acquire the land was in consonance with law. 7. I am afraid that the said contention of the respondents can be accepted. A perusal of the provisions of the Act, in particular Secion 3(j) which defines the 'prescribed authority' and Section 4 as well as the other provisions of Act 31/78 read along with Rule 3, it is crystal clear that in the Act the definite role are to be played by the 'prescribed authority' and the District Collector have been clearly set out and different functions have been assigned to them separately. While under Sub- Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 4, it is stated that the District Collector has to take a decision to acquire the land or to hold an enquiry by himself or by authorising any other officer to issue show cause notice and also to make a report, a reading of the other provisions, for instance Section 7,9,10,11,12 and 14 of the Act, different functions are to be performed by the 'prescribed authority'. It is therefore clear that under Section 3(j), G.O.Ms.1628 dated 21.9.79 and the amended notification in G.O.97 dated 8.2.1980 came to be issued by the State Government, declaring as to who is the 'prescribed authority' namely the Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare. Certainly such 'prescribed authority' cannot usurp the power of the District Collector who and who alone has been vested with the power under Section 4 to take a decision to acquire the land by passing appropriate award and the necessary notification in fulfilment of the said purpose. Certainly such 'prescribed authority' cannot usurp the power of the District Collector who and who alone has been vested with the power under Section 4 to take a decision to acquire the land by passing appropriate award and the necessary notification in fulfilment of the said purpose. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare, the 3rd respondent herein, can be stated to have the power under Section 4 which could be exercised only by the 2nd respondent to pass any order under Section 4(1) of the Act. 8. In such circumstances, the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted. In the absence of any valid award of the second respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act, the acquisition sought to be made by the impugned notification dated 15.12.97 cannot be sustained. 9. The writ petition therefore stands allowed. The notification impugned is quashed. It is however open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders including the award under Section 4(1) in accordance with law. No costs.