Judgment : The above writ petition relates to the challenge of the proceedings of the District Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District’s special publication in W1/2/2627/1996 dated 28. 1996 (No.77) directing the publication of Sec.4(1) notification. Sec.4(1) notification was published in the District Gazette notification on 19. 1996. The acquisition of land in question is in survey Nos.422/2 and 422/5 of Paruthiyur Sub-village, Thidakottai Village, Devakottai Taluk, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District. A notice-dated 12. 1996 was issued in Form III under Rule 5(i) of the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act XXXI of 1978) to the petitioner on 1212. 1996. The writ petition was admitted on 212. 1996 and interim stay of dispossession was granted and the same was made absolute on 9. 2003. The possession of the property is with the writ petitioner. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice in Form I under Rule 3(i) as contemplated under Sec.4(2) of Act 31 of 1978 was not served on the petitioner and therefore, the mandatory compliance as required under the said Act is breached and consequently, the acquisition proceedings have to be set aside. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the land ever-since the death of her husband in the year 1985. Petitioner claims that after the demise of her husband, she is cultivating the lands with her minor children. The petitioner has not been served with the notice as stated above and notice has not been sent to the minor children who are also co-owners of the property after the death of the father. It is also submitted that if the petitioner had been put on notice regarding the proposed acquisition, she could have submitted her genuine objections that the land in question is the only source of livelihood and seeks exemption from acquisition proceedings. The failure to issue notice as contemplated is fatal to the acquisition proceedings. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-The Special Tahsildar stating that on 112. 1995, the notice was served on the petitioner asking her to appear for the enquiry on 212. 1995. It is stated that she filed her objections. The failure to issue notice as contemplated is fatal to the acquisition proceedings. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-The Special Tahsildar stating that on 112. 1995, the notice was served on the petitioner asking her to appear for the enquiry on 212. 1995. It is stated that she filed her objections. Subsequently, the objections were taken into consideration and the same were rejected and the award enquiry notice was served and the award was also passed on 212. 1996. In para 5 of the counter, it is accepted that the land sought to be acquired is the only source of livelihood to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it has been repeatedly stated that notice in Form I was served on the petitioner and she appeared and filed her objections. 5. The learned Government Advocate fairly submits that there is nothing on record and the file would show that the notice under Form I, Rule 3(i) was served on the petitioner and that she had filed her objections. 6. Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act No.XXXI of 1978) clearly states as follows: "4. Power to acquire land- (1) ………… (2) Before publishing a notice under Sub sec. (1), the District Collector or any officer authorized by the District Collector in his be half, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorized may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired." 7. In viewof the above, since no notice has been issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act No.XXXI of 1978), the land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land has become invalid. In this regard, following judgments of this Court affirm the view that notice to the owner is mandatory. 8. P. Vedanayagam v. Secretary -Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, (1996) 1 C.T.C 379 ; Tmt. Pushpa Bai Baisingh v. District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, (1998) 2 M.L.J.240: (1998) 1 CTC.281; Thangamuthu Gounder v. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 2 CTC 625 ; T. Lakshmanan v. Collector of Dharmapuri, (2000) 2 A.L.L.A.C 510. 8. In the result, the challenge in the writ petition succeeds. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Pushpa Bai Baisingh v. District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, (1998) 2 M.L.J.240: (1998) 1 CTC.281; Thangamuthu Gounder v. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 2 CTC 625 ; T. Lakshmanan v. Collector of Dharmapuri, (2000) 2 A.L.L.A.C 510. 8. In the result, the challenge in the writ petition succeeds. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.