Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.02.2006 made in writ petition No.17517 of 1996. In the writ petition, the appellant herein sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, the District Collector, Dindigul relating to the notification made in the Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 31.01.1996 in N.Ka.No.H2/105497/95 dated 09.01.1996, with respect to the appellants land comprised in S.F.No.572/3 (0.81.0 Hectare), Kodalvavi Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul Anna District and the consequential notice dated 09.08.1996 issued in Na.Ka.No.2132/95/A in Form-III under Rule 5(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 and quash the same. 2. The facts are: An extent of 0.81 hectares of dry land in survey No.572/3 of Kodalvavi village was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of making provision of house sites to Adi dravidars of Kullampatti and Gurunappanaickenpudu, the hamlet villages of Kodalvavi village. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in G.O. Ms. (3D) 1079 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare dated 212. 1994 under the Central Act (1 of 1984) by issuance of 4 (1) notice to the land owner, the father of the appellant in whose name the land was registered in the revenue records. Section 5A enquiry notice was also issued to the land owner Madhana Gurusamy posting the enquiry on 23.02.1995. Subsequent proceedings were initiated under the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978. In the meantime, the subject land was settled in favour of the appellant. No notice which is mandatory in nature as contemplated under the Act were given by the appellant. On that basis the appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition having found that there was no merit in the contentions of the appellant. In this appeal the correctness of the said judgment is put in issue. 3. Before us, the following contentions were raised: .(1) The appellant being the owner of the property, by virtue of a settlement deed, should have been served with the notice under section 4(2) of the Act, but no notice has been served. In this appeal the correctness of the said judgment is put in issue. 3. Before us, the following contentions were raised: .(1) The appellant being the owner of the property, by virtue of a settlement deed, should have been served with the notice under section 4(2) of the Act, but no notice has been served. .(2) The learned Judge is not correct by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Baig, 2000 AIR SCW 197 and on the unreported judgment of this Court in writ petition No.19887 of 1998 dated 110. 2000 to come to the conclusion that the writ petition cannot be maintained after the award has been passed to non suit the appellant as those judgments were rendered under the Central Act. Except these two contentions no other contentions have been raised. 4. We are not able to approve any one of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is an undisputed fact that the subject land was registered in the name of the appellants father Madhana Gurusamy for all material time. Originally the proceedings for acquisition of land for the public purpose of providing house sites to Adi dravidars were initiated under the Central Act, 1 of 1894. Section 4(1) notification was published in the gazette and section 5A enquiry was conducted after issuing notice. 5. Though section 5A notice under the Central Act has been duly served on the land owner, he, by a telegram requested time for 30 days. The hearing dates were fixed on 17.05.1995 and 06.06.1995 and 20.06.1995. For all these hearings, notices were sent to the land owner, the father of the appellant through the Village Administrative Officer as well as by RPAD. Notices sought to be served through the Village Administrative Officer have been refused to be received by the land owner, the father of the appellant, and the Village Administrative Officer served notices by affixture and resubmitted the copies of the same by stating that the notices have been served by affixture. Notices sent for the 5A enquiry through RPAD were returned by the postal authorities with endorsements that the addressee has gone to outstation and in spite of repeated visits, the notice under RPAD could not be served as the addressee was not available respectively. Notices sent for the 5A enquiry through RPAD were returned by the postal authorities with endorsements that the addressee has gone to outstation and in spite of repeated visits, the notice under RPAD could not be served as the addressee was not available respectively. The land owner Madhana Gurusamy who sought for 30 days time for submitting his objections, neither submitted his objections nor attended the enquiry on the adjourned dates. 6. In the meanwhile, the State Act 31 of 1978, i.e., the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal AIR 1995 SC 2114 . As per section 22 of the Act 31 of 1978 the cases in which proceedings have been started before commencement of the State Act for the acquisition of land for the Harijan Welfare Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) but no award has been made by the Collector under section 11 of the Central Act, the State Act would apply as if the notification published under sub section (1) of section 4 of the Central Act or the declaration made under section 6 or the notice given under sub section (1) of section 9 of the Central Act were a notice to show cause against the acquisition of the land served under sub section (2) of section 4 of the State Act. 7. Despite such statutory provision, notice under section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 has been issued on 011. 1995 calling upon the land owner to file his objections by fixing the date of enquiry on 211. 1995. Notice was sent through the Administrative Officer of the village who resubmitted the notice by making an endorsement that the notice has been served by affixture as the land owner Madhana Gurusamy refused to receive the notice. The notice dated 211. 1995 under section 4(2) of the Act was also sent to the land owner by RPAD by fixing the date of enquiry on 112. 1995. This notice was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the addressee refused to receive the notice. Hence, the proposal for approval was sent to the District Collector and the same was approved by the District Collector on 09.01.1996 and published in the district gazette on 31.01.1996. 1995. This notice was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the addressee refused to receive the notice. Hence, the proposal for approval was sent to the District Collector and the same was approved by the District Collector on 09.01.1996 and published in the district gazette on 31.01.1996. Notice for award enquiry under Rule 5(1) was issued on 14.03.1996 by fixing the date of enquiry on 21.03.1996 through the Village Administrative Officer. Even here, the Village Administrative Officer resubmitted the copy of the notice with an endorsement that the notice has been served by affixture as the land owner refused to receive the same. The said notice sent through RPAD was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that in spite of the information given by the postal authorities from 16.03.1996 to 26.03.1996 the addressee was not available in the house and hence the notice could not be served. At that stage, the land owner Madana Gurusamy informed that an extent of 2.50 acres of land in survey No.572/3 has been settled by him in favour of his daughter Vasanthi, the appellant herein, by means of settlement deed dated 15.09.1995. Hence, the notice under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules was again sent to the appellant on 09.08.1996 by RPAD by fixing the enquiry to 02.09.1996. The appellant received the notice on 23.08.1996 and submitted an objection through her lawyer on 02.09.1996 raising objections to the effect that Thoppu land should not be acquired; the land obtained through the settlement and the land of small farmers should not be acquired; and there is a temple belonging to the chettiar community in the subject land and the same should not be acquired. The appellants father also appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and gave a statement. The objections of the appellant were over ruled on the ground that there were no trees, such as coconut trees in the land at the inception of the land acquisition proceedings, i.e., at the time of field inspection conducted on 21.09.1994. The land owner Madhana Gurusamy was a big pattadar owning an extent of 14.27 acres and that there was no structure of any kind, i.e., temple, well or trees in his land. .8. Section 5A notice for enquiry was issued under the Central Act with which there is no doubt. Section 45 of the Central Act provides for service of notice. .8. Section 5A notice for enquiry was issued under the Central Act with which there is no doubt. Section 45 of the Central Act provides for service of notice. As per the said provision, service of any notice under the Central Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed in the case of a notice under section 4 of the Act by the officer therein mentioned, and in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the Collector or Judge. Whenever it may be practicable, the service of notice shall be made on the person therein named. When such person cannot be found, service may be made of any adult male member of the family residing with him and if no such male member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing a copy on the outer door of 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. If the Collector or Judge so directs 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, registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and service of it may be proved by the production of addressees receipt. 9. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 provides that the District Collector or the officer authorised by him in this behalf shall serve a show cause notice in Form I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 individually on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired. If the owner or any other person interested in the land resides elsewhere than where the land is situated, the show cause notice shall be sent by registered post (acknowledgment due) to the last known address of the owner or any other person interested. 10. If the owner or any other person interested in the land resides elsewhere than where the land is situated, the show cause notice shall be sent by registered post (acknowledgment due) to the last known address of the owner or any other person interested. 10. In this case, notices have been sent for the purpose of service on the land owner through the Village Administrative Officer, and on the land owner refusing to receive the same, the Village Administrative Officer served the same by affixture in his residence and returned the copies of the notice by stating the mode of service. The notice sent through RPAD has also been returned unserved with an endorsement refused. 11. Thus it is amply clear that the notice issued under Section 5A for enquiry under the Central Act and subsequent notices issued under section 4(2) of the State Act have been successfully evaded by the land owner Madhana Gurusamy and all the notices were served by affixture which factum was not disputed before this Court. 12. When a registered envelope is tendered by postman to the addressee but he refused to accept it, there is due service effected upon the addressee by the refusal, the addressee must, therefore, be imputed with the knowledge of the contents thereof and this follows upon the presumption that are raised under section 114 of the Evidence Act. It is well settled that if notice is refused to be accepted by the addressee, it can be presumed to be served on him. (Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1604 and Harcharan Singh v. Shiv Ram, AIR 1981 SC 1284 ) .13. Though the settlement stated to have been made in favour of his daughter, the appellant herein, the revenue records have not been mutated by entering the appellants name. Inspite of that, when Rule 5(1) notice was served on the appellant, which has also been successfully evaded by the land owner Madhana Gurusamy he and his daughter appeared for the enquiry and submitted their objections, though the purpose of enquiry was for determination of amount of compensation. Even those objections have been considered and over-ruled by giving reasons. The award proceedings were finalised on 210. 1996 rejecting the objections. The value of the land was arrived at Rs.69,024/- and was deposited in the sub treasury office, Dindigul on 111. 1996. Even those objections have been considered and over-ruled by giving reasons. The award proceedings were finalised on 210. 1996 rejecting the objections. The value of the land was arrived at Rs.69,024/- and was deposited in the sub treasury office, Dindigul on 111. 1996. The area acquired was sub divided as survey No.572/3B and classified as Adi Dravidar Natham on 111. 1996 and possession was taken by the Special Revenue Inspector on 20.11.1996. Hence, the first contention of non service of notice deserves no merit consideration and the same is liable to be rejected. 14. The second contention cannot also be accepted as legal one as the contention of the present nature has been raised before us in Writ Appeal No.77 of 2006 and we have rejected the same by our order dated 07.02.2008 after referring to the division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramalingam v State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (3) CTC 1 , S.Harshavardhan v. State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (3) CTC 691 and the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671 , State of Tamilnadu v. L.Krishnan, (1996) 1 SCC 250 , Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division v. Suresha Nand Juyal, (1997) 9 SCC 224 , and Tej Kaur v. State of Punjab (2003) 4 SCC 485 by holding that the exposition of law made by the apex Court on the point of latches was not made with particular reference to the Central Act, though such enunciation was made while deciding the case arising out of Central Act, that the exposition of law is general in nature and when the object of the public purpose has been accomplished, the writ petition challenging the initiation and subsequent proceedings cannot be legally maintained. The said reasoning squarely covers the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant against her. 15. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is consequently dismissed.