Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Judgment and decree dated 14.10.1996 passed in LAOP No.154 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai and to direct the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai to proceed afresh for determination of the reference in accordance with law by issuing notice to the petitioner and giving opportunity. 2. The petitioner is the Union of India represented by its Postmaster General, Southern Region, Tamil Nadu, Madurai. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition could be briefly set out as hereunder: The Madurai Palace Post Office had been functioning in the building comprised in survey No.T.S.1233 from 1899. The extent of the land on which the building is constructed measures 2609 sq.ft. and the constructed area is about 1406 sq.ft. During 1977, the petitioner sought for renewal of the lease in respect of the said premises from the respondents 3 & 4, who were the owners of the property, but the owners did not agree for renewal of the lease, which necessitated the petitioner to approach the Government for acquiring site and premises. Thereafter, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to "as the Act") was issued in G.O.M.S.No.479, Transport Department, dated 19.08.1978 and after conducting Section 5-A enquiry, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in G.O.M.S.No.708, Transport Department dated 23.07.1981. Thereafter, an award was passed on 25.04.1982 and the acquired premises was handed over to the petitioner Department on 17.11.1982 and the compensation amount, which was deposited by the petitioner was also withdrawn by the owners of the premises. It appears that the erstwhile owners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming higher compensation and this reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.154 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. Simultaneously, land owners also challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court by filing W.P.No.10020 of 1993 and this Court had stayed the proceedings in LAOP. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 16.07.1993 and the writ appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Honble Division Bench on 24.01.1994. 3. Simultaneously, land owners also challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court by filing W.P.No.10020 of 1993 and this Court had stayed the proceedings in LAOP. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 16.07.1993 and the writ appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Honble Division Bench on 24.01.1994. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner department were not aware of the any further proceedings and only when, they received a communication from the second respondent dated 12.06.2002 stating that the I Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has passed a Judgment by enhancing a compensation to Rs.100/-per sq.ft. for land and Rs.200/- per sq.ft. for constructed area and the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to send a cheque for Rs. 34,87,173/- towards the enhanced compensation. Immediately, the petitioner by communication dated 16.07.2002 addressed to the second respondent, brought to his notice that they were not informed about the orders passed by the reference Court and that the reference Court has increased the compensation without issuing any notice to the petitioner department, who has to pay the enhanced compensation and the petitioner being a interested person. The Revenue authorities ought to have brought it to the notice of the petitioner about the LAOP proceedings. In the above said factual background, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the reference Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 20 of the Act, the reference Court shall cause a notice to the applicant, all persons interested in the objections and after amendment to Section 20 by Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1989, if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made shall also be served with the notice. Therefore, service of notice in terms of Section 20(d) is mandatory and though the LAOP was of the year 1983. Therefore, service of notice in terms of Section 20(d) is mandatory and though the LAOP was of the year 1983. In view of the writ proceedings initiated by the erstwhile land owner, the matter remained stayed and by then the amendment came into force and by virtue the judgments of this Court in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd V. P.R.Govindarajulu & 2 Others, 1993-2-L.W.37, the amendment to Section 20 shall apply to all proceedings pending before any Court on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act and as a consequential legal position with effect from 09.05.1990, the reference Court is required to give notice among others to the petitioner on whose behalf of the land is acquired. Therefore, it is contended that failure to issue notice to the petitioner, vitiates the entire proceedings and the Judgment and decree of the reference Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be heard afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and hear the contentions of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the erstwhile land owners submitted that the petitioner department was aware of the writ proceedings and after the dismissal of the writ appeal nothing prevented the department from getting themselves impleaded in the LAOP, which was pending before the reference Court and therefore, the petitioner department cannot now seek for setting aside the Judgment and decree of the reference Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 and learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7. This Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 01.04.2003, granted interim stay. Subsequently, by order dated 18.09.2003, the interim stay granted was made absolute on the condition that the petitioner deposits the entire compensation award and on such deposit, the erstwhile land owners were permitted to withdraw 50% of the same and the remaining 50% was directed to be invested in a Nationalized Bank. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the interim order was complied with and the erstwhile land owners have also withdrawn 50% of the compensation as ordered by this Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the interim order was complied with and the erstwhile land owners have also withdrawn 50% of the compensation as ordered by this Court. 8. Part III of the Land Acquisition Act deals with the reference to Court and procedure thereon, in terms of Section 18 any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, may seek for determination of the compensation by a Court, which is generally referred to as the reference Court. Sub-Section 2 of Section 18 stipulates that the application seeking such reference shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. Section 19 states about the information to be furnished by the Collector to the Court, pursuant to the reference under Section 18. Section 20 deals with service of notice and states about the persons to whom notices have to be served. Clause (d) was inserted in Section 20 by Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1990), which states that if the acquisition is not made for the Government, the person or authority for whom it is made shall be served with notice. 9. Thus, service of notice on the person or authority for whom, the acquisition is made has become mandatory as per the Section 20(d) by virtue the Tamil nadu Amendment Act. The amendment to Section 20 by insertion of clause (d) came into force on 09.05.1990, if that be so whether such amendment could be made applicable to the case on hand, when admittedly, the present reference application was made during 1983 much prior to the amendment. The answer to this question lies in Section 3 of the Amending Act which provides that Section 20 of the Parent Act as amended shall apply also to all proceedings pending before any Court on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act. Thus by virtue Section 3 of the Amending Act, the right of the persons or authorities for whom, the land is acquired is statutorily recognized. 10. It is not in dispute that the erstwhile land owners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings before this Court by filing W.P.No.10020 of 1993 and the writ petition was pending and during the pendency of the LAOP proceedings also remained stayed and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed on 16.07.1993. 10. It is not in dispute that the erstwhile land owners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings before this Court by filing W.P.No.10020 of 1993 and the writ petition was pending and during the pendency of the LAOP proceedings also remained stayed and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed on 16.07.1993. By then the sub-clause (d) of Section 20 came to be inserted in the Parent Act. Further, the erstwhile land owners filed writ appeal and the same was dismissed by the Honble Division Bench on 24.01.1994. Thus, after the dismissal of the writ appeal, the reference Court has commenced proceedings and at that stage, it was incumbent upon the reference Court to issue notice to the requisitioning body, the petitioner herein. Identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, referred supra, and this Court held that the Judgment and decree of the reference Court therein was illegal and ab-initio-void and unenforceable on the ground of non-issue of statutory notice to the person interested. This decision applies to the case on hand with full force. 11. In view of the above reasoning the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the award passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.154 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai is set aside and the matter is remanded to the I Additional Sub-Court, Madurai and the reference Court shall issue notice to the writ petitioner as well as the erstwhile land owners and dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as the proceedings is of the year 1983. The 50% of the award amount, which has been directed to be retained in deposit in a Nationalized Bank shall continue to be retained in such deposit and shall abide by the final order to be passed by the reference Court. No costs.