Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The correctness of the order dated 17.04.2004 made in writ petition No.14259 of 1996 whereby the land acquisition proceedings under section 4(1) of the Tamilnadu Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme act, 1978 published in the Government Gazette on 13.03.1996 was quashed, is canvassed in this appeal. 2. The appellants herein initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Act 13 of 1978), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" to acquire 0.01.0 hectare comprised in S.F. No.226/2, Marchiniakenpalayam village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, to provide house sites to the Adidravidas of T.Chinnappampalayam. On 08.02.1996 the second appellant sent notice to one Senapathi Gounder, the owner of the land as per village record under section 4(2) of the Act in Form-1 under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979. The said notice directed the said Senapathi Gounder to lodge his statements of objections within 15 days after the service of notice by fixing the date of enquiry to 28.02.1996. On 01.03.1996 the said Senapathy Gounder sent a petition to the second appellant to fix the fresh date of hearing as he was indisposed of. The said petition was received by the second appellant on 04.03.1996. However, the second appellant concluded the enquiry on the date fixed, i.e., on 28.02.1996 after recording the statement of Village Administrative Officer, who stated that there was no objection from any one, in the absence of the noticee Senapathi Gounder and sent the proposal under Section 4(1) to the District Collector on 29.02.1996 and the same was published in the gazette on 13.03.1996. 3. With the above said factual matrix, the first respondent herein filed a writ petition contending that he filed a civil suit in O.S. No.643 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi for declaration of his title in respect of a larger extent of land (7.29 acres), which included the property in acquisition. The suit was decreed on 21.06.1996. Hence, he is the real owner of the property dating back from the date of the suit in the year 1994, though the name of Senapathi Gounder was found as owner in the revenue records. No notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act was served on him. The suit was decreed on 21.06.1996. Hence, he is the real owner of the property dating back from the date of the suit in the year 1994, though the name of Senapathi Gounder was found as owner in the revenue records. No notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act was served on him. He being the real owner of the property as declared by the competent Civil Court, he is entitled to question the proceedings on the ground of violation of statutory provision. 4. The learned single Judge, after taking note of the relevant facts as to issuance of notice and receipt of it by Senapathy Gounder and his request for re-fixing the date of enquiry to a future date, in paragraph 6 of the order has observed that the first respondent/writ petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his title to a larger extent of property, which included the property in question way back in the year 1994. At the time of filing the suit, the first respondent would not have foreseen that a portion of the property would be acquired in future date. The suit could not be regarded as one filed for the purpose of avoiding the land acquisition proceedings, which was initiated in the year 1996. On the decree being granted on 26. 1996 in favour of the first respondent he became the legal owner of the property dating back to the filing of the suit. Thus, the first respondent could not be regarded as successor in interest or transferee pending proceedings under the Act and he should be given in all fairness, an opportunity to put forth his objections. While observing so, the learned single Judge ultimately allowed the writ petition by striking down the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act. 5. The said order is now put in issue by the appellants, inter alia, contending that the registered owner Senapathi Gounder was issued with notice under Section 4(2) and he failed to file any objection statement to the proceeding within the time granted. His request for extension of time was rejected as it was received after expiry of time granted to file such objections that is conclusion of enquiry under Section 4(2). The learned Government Pleader has raised yet another contention that the first respondent participated in the Rule 5 enquiry for determination of compensation. His request for extension of time was rejected as it was received after expiry of time granted to file such objections that is conclusion of enquiry under Section 4(2). The learned Government Pleader has raised yet another contention that the first respondent participated in the Rule 5 enquiry for determination of compensation. Hence, at this point of time he cannot be allowed to contend that he was not served with the 4(2) notice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued for sustaining the order of the learned single Judge. 7. We heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 8. In respect of the first point, as to the conclusion of the enquiry conducted by the first respondent is concerned, we are not able to approve the way in which it was concluded. The conspectus of Section 4 of the Act is to the following effect: -- Sub-section (1) of Section 4 empowers the District Collector, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire some land for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme, to acquire that land by publishing in Government Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire it in pursuance of Section 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 obligated the Collector or any Officer authorised by him in this behalf to call upon the owner or any other person, who in the opinion of the District Collector or the Officer so authorised, is interested in such land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. Where the District Collector has called upon the owner or any other person to show cause under sub-section 2, clause (a) of the sub-section (3) requires him to pass order on the cause so shown. Where any authorised officer by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), clause (b) of Section 3 requires that Officer to report the District Collector his recommendation on the cause so shown and the District Collector is required to pass such order as he may deem fit after considering the report. Sub-Section (2) of section 4 therefore obliges the acquiring authority to serve notice upon the owner of the land under acquisition to show cause why it should not be acquired. Sub-Section (2) of section 4 therefore obliges the acquiring authority to serve notice upon the owner of the land under acquisition to show cause why it should not be acquired. By reason of sub-section 3 of Section 4, such cause has to be taken into account and orders passed in respect thereof." 9. Thus, passing an order on the objections raised by the owner or any person interested in the land to be acquired is an important stage in the acquisition proceedings. The owner or the person interested is entitled to raise his objections against the acquisition of the property. For that purpose, a reasonable opportunity should be given. Such an opportunity should not be foreclosed as done in this case. 10. The learned single Judge found on facts that the notice dated 2. 1996 in form under Rule 3(1) was sent to Senapathi Gounder, as his name was mentioned in the revenue records as the owner. The notice directed him to lodge a statement of his objections within fifteen days after the receipt of the copy of the notice by fixing the date of enquiry as 22. 1996. That notice was served on 22. 1996 (sic). The fifteen days time would expire on 13. 1996. But on 3. 1996, the said Senapathi Gounder sent a petition to the second appellant to fix another date for enquiry and the same was received by the Special Tahsildar on 3. 1996. The second appellant should have responded to the request as the fifteen days time would expire only on 13. 1996, however, notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by the District Collector of Coimbatore in Form No.II on 3. 1996. Thus, the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act issued by the Collector in Form NO.II on 3. 1996 is against the mandatory statutory provisions. 11. We are in entire agreement with the view of the learned single Judge. The hearing of the objections of the land owner or the person interested in the land must be a real hearing and it should not be a farce or ritual for the purpose of compliance of the provisions of the statute, particularly, when a valuable right conferred on the citizen of India under Article 300 of the Constitution is sought to be taken away. Hence, any subsequent proceedings after the issuance of notice under section 4(2) has to be necessarily set aside in respect of Senapathi Gounder. It is true that at the time when 4 (2) notice was issued, the said Senapathi Gounder was regarded by the second appellant as the real owner of the property in view of finding his name in the revenue record. Even then, the further proceedings proceeded with by the second appellant is not in accordance with the requirement of statutory provision. 12. As regards the second contention of the learned Government Pleader that though the first respondent has become the real owner of the property under acquisition, his name did not find place in the revenue records. Further, the first respondent appeared before the second appellant at the time of award enquiry and requested for exemption of the land from acquisition, cannot justify the action of the appellants to proceed further. By giving reason as to the genuineness of the filing of the suit by the first respondent, the learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that he should be given an opportunity in all fairness to put forth his objections for the acquisition proceedings. It is admitted by the appellant that the first respondent appeared at the time of enquiry for first time before the second appellant and raised his objections against the land acquisition proceedings. Even that objections have not been considered by the second appellant. Hence, we are in complete agreement that the order passed by the learned single judge in setting aside the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, we are of the view that if the Collector is still of the opinion that the land is required for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adidravidas of T.Chinnappampalayam, it is well open to him to issue fresh notice to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 13. On a reading of the concluding paragraph of the order of the learned single judge quashing the notification dated 3. 1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it would not preclude the appellants to proceed further as contemplated under the Act. 13. On a reading of the concluding paragraph of the order of the learned single judge quashing the notification dated 3. 1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it would not preclude the appellants to proceed further as contemplated under the Act. As an apprehension has been raised that any further proceedings in accordance with law has not been saved by the learned single judge, we make it clear that it is well open to the District Collector, if he is still of the opinion that the land is required for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adidravidas of T.Chinnappampalayam, he can proceed further in accordance with law. 14. With this observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.P.No.7954 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.23 of 2008 are closed.