Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the orders passed vide Ref No.Na.Ka.No.440/2002 dated 5/10/2007 and order Ref RC 440/2002 dated 26/10/2007 filed and marked as Ex.A and Ref RC 440/2002 dated 26.10.2007 filed and marked as Ex.B issued by the third respondent, and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, prohibit the respondent No.1 to 3 from taking any further steps in respect of the petitioner's land situate in S.No.230/14. 2. The petitioner is owner of the land in Survey No.230/14 in Siruseri, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram district which was purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the land adjacent to his land belonging to his sister was acquired for industrial purpose by issuing notification under section 7(5) and 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. 4. It is submitted that sister of the petitioner being dissatisfied, sought reference for enhancement of compensation. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that all of a sudden on 5.10.2007, the petitioner received post card from the third respondent asking the petitioner to come and collect the compensation for his land situate in survey No.230/14 in Siruseri, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram district. 6. It is submitted that land of the petitioner could not be acquired being used for agriculture purpose. It is further pleaded that prior to the communication received by the petitioner, no notice for acquisition was issued to the petitioner, therefore, proceedings initiated by the respondents are void ab initio are thus, not sustainable in law. 7. The impugned order calling upon the petitioner to collect compensation and other acquisition proceedings have been challenged primarily on the ground that no notice under section 3(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the whole proceedings of acquisition are without jurisdiction regarding the land of the petitioner. 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings were qua the land of the sister of the petitioner and therefore, his land could be included in the acquired land. The impugned order therefore, is challenged being totally arbitrary, and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. No counter affidavit has been filed. 10. It is also the case of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings were qua the land of the sister of the petitioner and therefore, his land could be included in the acquired land. The impugned order therefore, is challenged being totally arbitrary, and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. No counter affidavit has been filed. 10. It may be noticed here that this Court while considering the question for grant of stay, called for file. It was after going through file on 25.8.2008, that this Court ordered as under: "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice whatsoever was served on the petitioner as required under law, before the land was acquired. Even in respect of the award proceedings, no notice was served. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as a matter of fact, no notice could be served on the petitioner, since as per the revenue records, he was not the owner. When it is brought to the notice of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the said contention cannot be accepted, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the possession was taken by the Government and the said land has been allotted to a beneficiary and the beneficiary is in possession of the property. The said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to produce the entire file more particularly, the file relating to taking over of the possession and induction of the beneficiary into the possession of the property. Post on 27.8.2008 for orders." 11. Though this order was passed in 2008, till date, the respondents have not produced on record any file or order showing acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner. 12. Learned Government Pleader vehemently contends that this petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner was not entitled to any notice, as the land was in the name of Mr. Jagannathan, to whom notice under section 3(1) 3(2) of the Act was issued and therefore, the acquisition is valid. 13. It is also vehemently contended, that after acquisition of the land, vendor of the petitioner sought for reference for higher compensation, therefore, the writ petition being totally misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. 14. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 13. It is also vehemently contended, that after acquisition of the land, vendor of the petitioner sought for reference for higher compensation, therefore, the writ petition being totally misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. 14. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader. The respondents have not placed on record, any notice issued under section 3(1)(2) to the petitioner, or his vendor for acquiring the land even though notice awarding compensation has been issued in the name of the petitioner showing that the State was aware that the property stands in the name of the petitioner. Inspite of this, no notice under section 3(1) 3(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner. 15. It is the case of the petitioner that adjacent land belonging to his sister has been validly acquired for which enhanced compensation was awarded. The Challenge is only to the land belonging to the petitioner qua which no procedure envisaged under the Act were taken 16. Once it is proved that statutory provision i.e. Section 3(1) 3(2) are not complied with, the acquisition proceedings with regard to the land of the petitioner is illegal and void thus, not sustainable in law. 17. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are quashed. 18. However, it will be open to the State Government to acquire land of the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.