Judgment :- The petitioner in W.P.No.32 of 2005 is the owner of the land situated in 66, Perumalagaram Village, Block I in Government Wet Survey Nos.50/2B1, 51/1, 51/2, 51/4, 52, 68/2A2 and 68/2B, Ambathur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. He is stated to be carrying on agricultural operations as a source of revenue. Under notice dated 10. 2002 in Form 3 A, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the Survey Nos.50/2B1 and 50/2B2 measuring 9 cents, 51/1, 51/2 and 51/4 measuring 88 cents, 53 measuring 1 Acre 29 cents 68/2A2 and 68/2B both measuring 82.5 cents situated at Perumalagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. An enquiry was conducted on 111. 2002 by the second respondent wherein the petitioner submitted his objections for acquisition of the agricultural wet lands yielding three crops per year. The petitioner attended the enquiry at the office of the Village Administrative Officer, Perumalagaram Village on 12. 2003 and submitted his detailed objections on the acquisition of his agricultural wet lands. The petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.1761 (Revenue Department) dated 210. 1982 and G.O.No.617 (Revenue Department) dated 14. 1985 that the lands in question being agricultural wet lands, the acquisition was bad. 2. The allegation of the petitioner herein is that the second respondent, without considering the grounds of objection, accepted the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 3. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner is challenging the acquisition proceedings seeking quashing of G.O.Ms.No.132, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27. 2003 with respect to the petitioners property measuring 3 acres and 8.5 cents in Perumalagaram Village, Ambathur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. 4. The Writ Petitioners in other writ petitions also claimed similar relief. Considering the common issue raised in these writ petitions, a common order is passed. 5. On notice, the second respondent filed individual counter affidavits. The contentions in these counters filed are on identical terms that Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Tiruvallur District Gazette Extraordinary No.14 dated 26. 2002; the Notification was published in two Tamil dailies, viz., Makkal Kural (Tamil) dated 26. 2002 and Dr.Namadhu MGR (Tamil) dated 26. 2002; an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 111. The contentions in these counters filed are on identical terms that Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Tiruvallur District Gazette Extraordinary No.14 dated 26. 2002; the Notification was published in two Tamil dailies, viz., Makkal Kural (Tamil) dated 26. 2002 and Dr.Namadhu MGR (Tamil) dated 26. 2002; an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 111. 2002 and the interested parties participated in the enquiry. .6. The counter further refers to the fact that the objections were sent to the requisitioning body for opinion. By letter dated 3. 2003, the requisitioning body informed the respondents to overrule all the objections raised in the enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act. Since the lands notified for acquisition are required for public purpose for formation of housing scheme of Ambattur Neighbourhood at Perumalagaram Village as one compact block, the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was communicated to the land owners. After the completion of enquiry on 12. 2003 under Rule 3(b) of the Act, proceedings were intimated to the petitioners rejecting their objections that a portion of the proposed acquisition of lands forming a compact block could not be excluded. The second respondent states that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act regarding acquisition of the lands was approved in G.O.Ms.No.132, Housing and Urban Development LA.1 Department dated 27. 2003 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.212, dated 27. 2003 and two Tamil dailies, viz., Dhinaboomi and Makkal Kural on 27. 2003. The gist of the notification was published in the panchayat office notice board on 37. 2003. The respondents deny the allegations only to contend that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were followed strictly. Defending the publication in two Tamil Dailies, namely, Makkal Kural and Dr.Namadhu MGR, the respondents state that there is no violation of the procedures. 7. In sum and substance, the respondents state that the procedures are complied with in accordance with the requirements under the statute. Hence, the writ petitions do not deserve any consideration. .8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the Notification dated 26. 7. In sum and substance, the respondents state that the procedures are complied with in accordance with the requirements under the statute. Hence, the writ petitions do not deserve any consideration. .8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to the Notification dated 26. 2002 which contemplated acquisition of land for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme; that when the contemplation is for an acquisition of an extent of 60.5 acres, the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by the District Collector causing publication in the District Gazette is an invalid one, since going by the decision of this Court reported in 2004 (2) CTC 406 (A.S.Periasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), publication in the District Gazette does not satisfy the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and that the District Gazette cannot be construed as a public Official Gazette for the purpose of compliance of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. He further pointed out that the District Collector, in the Notification, refers to the decision of the Government of Tamil Nadu as regards the need for acquisition. Hence, the Collector, as an acquiring authority, has to conform to Section 4(1) of the Act, limiting his jurisdiction upto the value of Rs.25 lakhs and for lands not more than 40 acres. In the absence of any material to show as to the satisfaction, the issuance of the Notification in Tiruvallur District Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act is a colourable exercise. Apart from this, the publication of Section 4(1) notification in two Tamil dailies Makkal Kural and Dr.Namadhu M.G.R. do not have wide circulation to contend that there was wide publication of the notice. He pointed out that the acquisition itself is by way of a block acquisition. On representations made by some of the land owners, the Government has excluded some of the lands in the block acquisition, which means, the claim as to the purpose of block acquisition itself ceases to have any legal and factual validity. He further pointed out that in the Section 5A enquiry conducted on 12. 2003 by the second respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar, when the land owners placed their objections to the acquisition, except a mere intimation as to the decision of the Housing Board overruling the objections filed by the petitioners, there was no independent application of mind by the said authority. 2003 by the second respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar, when the land owners placed their objections to the acquisition, except a mere intimation as to the decision of the Housing Board overruling the objections filed by the petitioners, there was no independent application of mind by the said authority. Hence, in so far as the the proceedings dated 12. 2003 fails to disclose the independent application of mind for the rejection of the Petitioners objections, as contemplated under the Act, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 9. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that when the proceedings, right from the beginning of Section 4(1) Notification, is writ with illegality, the Section 6 declaration dated 27. 2003 also has to fail. He further pointed out that the Section 6 declaration was published in Dinaboomi and Makkal Kural which do not have wide circulation in the locality where the petitioners lands are located. In this regard, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the unreported decision in a batch of cases in W.P.No.38690 of 2002 etc. dated 18. 2003 (Ayyavu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another) that the proceedings have to be declared illegal. Further referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.19168/2001 dated 19. 2002, learned senior counsel pointed out that when the land acquisition officer has delegated his decision making responsibility to the acquiring body and no independent consideration is there as to the objections filed, at this distance of time, no purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to the authority concerned. In any event, having regard to the illegality writ even at the stage of Section 4(1) Notification, the writ petitions have to be allowed thereby setting aside the acquisition proceedings. .10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 782 (S.A.Velusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), particularly with reference to the paper notification that in respect of the chosen newspapers, this Court had commented about the publication undertaken in these newspapers that the publication is not a valid one considering the extent of circulation it carries. Consequently, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for want of a notification made in accordance with law, the acquisition must fail. 11. Consequently, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for want of a notification made in accordance with law, the acquisition must fail. 11. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that considering the amendment that has been made to Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly in 1999, the Collector had effected the notification in the District Gazette with the land value upto Rs.25 lakhs as permissible limit. In the circumstances, the reliance placed on the decision reported in 2004 (2) CTC 406 (A.S.Periasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) is not correct that the decision has to be read in the context of the law. She further pointed out to the amendment made to Section 4(1) of the Act and contended that no objection could be taken to the Collector publishing the 4(1) notification in the District Gazette. Pointing out to the fact that the acquisition was for the Housing Board, learned Special Government Pleader argued that there is nothing wrong or colourable in the District Collector publishing the notification if the value of the land falls within the limit of Rs.25 lakhs. Hence, the notification under Section 4(1) has to be upheld. As regards Section 5-A enquiry, the stand of the Department is that since the acquisition is for Housing Scheme of Ambattur Neighbourhood at Perumalagaram Village, the opinion of the Housing Board was obtained and communicated to the landlords and further, in the enquiry, objections from the land owners were also sought and considered. Consequently, no exception could be taken as to the outcome of the Section 5-A enquiry. As to the publication in the newspapers, she further submitted that the publication had been effected taking note of the extent of land. Hence, considering the compliance of the provisions of the Act, the writ petition be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel on either side. 13. As far as the objection of the learned Special Government Pleader as to the provsions of Section 4(1) of the Act, amended by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is concerned, a perusal of the same shows that all that had been contemplated under the amendment is only the monetary limit for the Collector to cause the publication. The provision as contained in Section 4(1) of the Act requiring publication in the Official Gazette remains unaltered. The provision under the amending Act reads as follows: "4. The provision as contained in Section 4(1) of the Act requiring publication in the Official Gazette remains unaltered. The provision under the amending Act reads as follows: "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. " Hence, the amendment to Section 4(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of the requirement specified as to the monetary limit specifying the jurisdiction of the Collector in the matter of causing the publication when the lands sought to be acquired are to the value of Rs.25 lakhs. In the circumstances, the contention of the Special Government Pleader that the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (2) CTC 406 (A.S.Periasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) has to be understood in the context of the provisions then available, has to be negatived. In the said decision, while dealing with the distinction between the official gazette and the district gazette as prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, this Court held as follows: "While amending the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1997, it must be deemed that the Legislature was aware of the distinction between District Gazette and the Gazette of a State and yet while amending Section 4(1) the Legislature never thought it fit to amend the expression Official Gazette as contained in Section 4(1) of the Central Act. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the expression Official Gazette in Central Act means the Official Gazette of the State and cannot mean a District Gazette. The first contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore accepted. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the expression Official Gazette in Central Act means the Official Gazette of the State and cannot mean a District Gazette. The first contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore accepted. " The above law laid down by this Court remains as it is even as regards the amendment that had been brought forth in the year 1999 whereby the power of the Collector was enhanced to acquisition of lands of the value of Rs.25 lakhs and above. In the light of the declaration, looking at the facts herein, the publication being in the Official Gazette, there being no provision as to District Gazette, the contention, hence, stands accepted. The publication in this case was in the Thiruvallur District Gazette dated 26. 2002. The satisfaction recorded as to the acquisition required for a public purpose came from the Government of Tamil Nadu, the purpose being for the formation of Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. 14. I also agree with the learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent as regards the paper publication to be effected in the newspapers having wide circulation. Given the purpose of a paper publication, it is necessary that the acquiring authority has to go for publication in newspapers having wide coverage, so that the proceedings as regards the acquisition of the property in the locality does not go unnoticed and that the attention of the persons interested in the property sought to be acquired in the locality are drawn. Rightly the third respondent and the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 782 (S.A.Velusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and 2004-3-LW 38 S.N. (P.A.K.Habib & 4 others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & others) that if the provisions have to be given their meaning, a paper notification has to be in such of those newspapers which are of wide circulation that it reaches a wide cross section of the public in the locality. Going by the above-said decisions, there being no materials to hold that Namadhu MGR and Makkal Kural have wide circulation in the area to carry the message as regards the notifications published, the petitioners contention merits acceptance by this Court. .15. Going by the above-said decisions, there being no materials to hold that Namadhu MGR and Makkal Kural have wide circulation in the area to carry the message as regards the notifications published, the petitioners contention merits acceptance by this Court. .15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further pointed out that even if this Court is to uphold the publication given as regards one of the papers as good compliance of the requirement, yet, notification contemplated as per Section 4(1) of the Act has to be in two widely circulated daily papers, vide the decision of this Court reported in 2004-3 L.W. 38 S.N. (P.A.K.Habib & 4 others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & others). In the light of the above-said decision and the facts noted above, the acquisition proceedings falls short of the compliance of the requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act. This Court pointed out that the contention that one of the two newspapers viz "Dinakaran" and "Pirpagal" in which the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published had adequate circulation was not sufficient compiance of the mandatory requirement. The requirement has to be a meanigful compliance and cannot be made a ritualistic pseudo compliance by the authorities. This Court further pointed out that the fact that the petitioner had taken part in the enquiry proceedings and hence no prejudice is caused could not be accepted, since the statutory requirement of publication in the newspapers having wide circulation is mandatory in as much as the need for publication in the Gazette is not to be confused with the individual notice to be sent for enquiry and that the improper compliance of the said mandatory requirement of publication to the general public, would vitiate the entire proceedings. This Court pointed out that the purpose of mandatory notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act are totally different. .16. In the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 782 (S.A.Velusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), the Division Bench of this Court pointed out that the requirement of strict compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act is mandatory. This Court held: ."7. .16. In the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 782 (S.A.Velusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), the Division Bench of this Court pointed out that the requirement of strict compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act is mandatory. This Court held: ."7. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act mandates that whenever the Government wants to acquire a land for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published (1) in Official Gazette; (2) in two Daily Newspapers circulating in that locality of which one shall be in regional language; and (3) public notice of the substance of such notification is to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Courts have held that all the three modes of publication are mandatory and failure to comply with the same would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. " 17. Guided by the above decisions, on the facts herein, I have no hesitation in holding that there is no compliance of the requirement as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act. .18. This takes us to the next question as regards the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act that except for a mere assertion in the counter affidavit that the satisfaction of the requisitioning body had been obtained, there is hardly any material to show that the requirement under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act had been fulfilled. Even here, the compliance falls short of the requirement under Section 5-A of the Act. In the decision reported in 2002 (I) CTC 28 (Arumugha Mudaliar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), this Court pointed out that the violations found in the Section 5-A enquiry strikes at the very root of the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act. Consequently, the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act is invalid. This case also relates to an acquisition on behalf of the requisitioning body. Referring to the conduct of Section 5-A enquiry, this Court pointed out that when there were no details as to whether the objections of the petitioners were forwarded by the requisitioning body and whether any remark was received and furnished to the petitioner land owners, certainly, the proceedings at the stage of Section 5-A enquiry could not be upheld. Again, in the decision reported in 2002-I-L.W. 37 (S.N.) (Tamil Nadu Real Estates Ltd. & Others Vs.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, etc. Again, in the decision reported in 2002-I-L.W. 37 (S.N.) (Tamil Nadu Real Estates Ltd. & Others Vs.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, etc. & others), this Court pointed out that if the remarks of the requisitioning body were not served on the land owners, with mandate of Rule 3B not complied with, and hence violated, the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act have to be held as vitiated. This Court pointed out that when the statutory provisions under Section 5-A(2) of the Act require the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objection and submit his recommendation on the objections, he is expected to assess the objections independently and objectively. With the remarks received from the requisitioning body which alone would satisfy the provisions of Section 5-A(2) of the Act, in the absence of any consideration of the objections filed objectively, the land acquisition officer could only be held as having abdicated his obligations to the recommendations of the requisitioning body, there being no objective assessment with regard to the objections of the land owners in the eye of law, vis-a-vis the remarks of the requisitioning body. In the circumstances, this Court pointed out that there is no valid enquiry; consequently, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was liable to be quashed. In so holding, this Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 255 (Shyam Nandan Prasad & others Vs. State of Bihar & others). 19. In the background of the above-said decisions and the facts in these petitions, I have no hesitation in holding that there was no enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, if the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act are held as illegal, the subsequent orders passed by the respondents, particularly under Section 6 of the Act, has to fail, as there had been no compliance of the statutory provisions at all. In the light of the fact that Section 4(1) notification had not been properly effected and thus an illegality writ large in the proceedings right from this stage, I have no hesitation in allowing the writ petitions. .20. In the light of the fact that Section 4(1) notification had not been properly effected and thus an illegality writ large in the proceedings right from this stage, I have no hesitation in allowing the writ petitions. .20. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the Government had gone for acquiring the land for the Housing Board Scheme; yet, subsequent to the modification, more than 50% of lands were relieved from the acquisition proceedings. With the major portion of the lands thus relieved from the scheme itself, the purpose of acquisition itself has lost its relevance for any further action in this regard. 21. Learned Special Government pointed out that what had been done by the Government by way of exempting some of the lands from the proceedings are relatable to lands in approved layout and the petitioners case exists on a different footing. I do not agree with the said line of thinking. Even if it is an approved layout, for acquisistion proceedings purposes, it matters very little. In the circumstances, when the acquisition sought for was as a block for the requisition body to develop a housing scheme, and on representation from some of the land owners, the Government drops certain extent from the said block from the acquisition proceedings thereby excludes 50% of the areas from block acquisistion, it is rather a moot question for any one to answer as to whether there exists any meanigful scheme at all for further execution. That the lands chosen for exclusion from acquisition are from approved layout is not of any relevance in considering the claim of the petitioner. The fact is, with 50% of the lands excludeed from acquisition proceedings, the very purport of the acquisition proceedings has now become a paper scheme for any meaningful exercise. The fact that the excluded lands are in approved layout is not the test on which the present claim of the respondents could be accepted. In the circumstances, with more than 50% of the lands relieved from the scheme, there being no notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette as contemplated, I have no hesitation in quashing the acquisition proceedings and thereby allow the Writ petitions. Consequently W.P.Nos.32 to 36 of 2005 are allowed. 22. In the circumstances, with more than 50% of the lands relieved from the scheme, there being no notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette as contemplated, I have no hesitation in quashing the acquisition proceedings and thereby allow the Writ petitions. Consequently W.P.Nos.32 to 36 of 2005 are allowed. 22. As far as W.P.No.23428 of 2004 is concerned, it is seen that notice of acquisition in this case was served on the owner, a dead person. In the above circumstances, when the purpose of issuance of notice is lost, the writ petition has to be allowed thereby quashing the proceedings. Hence, apart from the reasons already given, on the ground of the service of notice on the dead person, W.P.No.23428 of 2004 is allowed. In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P.No.28945 of 2003 stands closed.