Judgment : 1. The Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petitions praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent relating to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 in Ref.No.M5/24922/2000 published in the Villupuram District Gazettee Extraordinary No.1 dated 13.01.2005 and to quash the same so far as it relates to their lands in R.S.Nos.127/3, 127/5, 122/13 & 14, 126/5 and 127/4 & 6, 122/11, 126/3 and R.S.No.126/4 and 126/2B respectively in Manakuppam Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District. 2. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, the Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 was made on 13.01.2005 before the District Collector passed an order under Section 4(3) of the Act. 3. It is the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the Collector passed orders only on 18.01.2005 (under Section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978) and before that, Section 4 (1) Gazette Notification was published on 13.01.2005 and as such, the Notification, in question, is liable to be quashed, in the eye of law. 4. Yet another contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that no notice was given to the Petitioner (Gajalakshmi) in W.P.No.9144/2005 in respect of 0.24.0 hectare in S.No.127/3 and further, the Notification was issued in her husband Radhakrishnan's name. Likewise, in respect of the Petitioner (Vasanthi) in W.P.9145/ 2005, relating to S.No.127/5 in respect of 0.18.5 hectares, no notice was given to her. Also that, the Writ Petitioner (Chandra) in W.P.No.9147/2005, in respect of 0.38.5 hectares, was not given notice as required under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 . 5. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Pari V. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai, 2006 (4) CTC at page 609 at special page 622, in paragraph 27, wherein it is observed and held as follows: "27. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Pari V. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai, 2006 (4) CTC at page 609 at special page 622, in paragraph 27, wherein it is observed and held as follows: "27. It was submitted on behalf of the State that if copy of the report of the authorised officer is to be furnished and opportunity of making a further representation to the District Collector would be given, the proceedings may be delayed and the object of the Act for speedy acquisition may be defeated. We do not think that by furnishing a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorised officer and giving opportunity of making a further representation would unduly delay any such proceedings. In our opinion, if the copy of the report/ recommendation of the authorised officer is given to the owner at the time when such report/recommendation is sent to the District Collector and the owner is called upon to make further representation, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such report, the proceedings would not get unduly delayed." Also, in the aforesaid decision, at page 630, in paragraph 38, it is held under: "38. So far as Question No. 2 is concerned, since it is construed by us that it is necessary for the Collector to give opportunity to the owner to file further representation on the report / recommendation made by the authorised officer, such copy of the report/recommendation is required to be furnished. We also add that in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 the owner would be entitled no copy of the report of the authorised officer." Moreover, in paragraph 41 of the aforesaid Judgment, at page 632, it is, among other things, observed as follows: "41. . . . . . . Law which provides for such acquisition of land obviously should stand the test of lack of arbitrariness as otherwise such law may fly in the face of Article 14 and may be Article 21. . . . . . . Law which provides for such acquisition of land obviously should stand the test of lack of arbitrariness as otherwise such law may fly in the face of Article 14 and may be Article 21. Even though the substantive right of the State to acquire land cannot be denied, such law providing for acquisition of land should satisfy the test of procedural reasonableness and it is therefore apparent that the authority acquiring such land (in the present case the District Collector) must be satisfied about the necessity to acquire such land and while arriving at such satisfaction, the authority is also required to consider the objections raised by the land owner. The authority must be alive to the requirement of balancing the need of the State as well as peculiar disadvantages to be suffered by the land owner. As observed by the Division Bench even though the authority is not expected to write "reasoned judgment" the materials on record must indicate that the authority has applied its mind. Obviously the magic incantations of the words used in the Act or the Rules would not indicate that mind has been applied and therefore, it is always desirable for the authority to indicate the reasons why such authority is talking a decision to acquire the land and rejecting the objection of the land owner. As a matter of fact, to be fair to the learned Additional Advocate General, he has stated in no uncertain term that the need to give reasons for the decision has to be read into the enactment. In the aforesaid context, the learned Additional Advocate General has also referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in 2004 (3) MLJ 129 (V. Kannian v. The Collector, Salem District, Salem and Ors.). Therefore, in our opinion, the requirement to give reasons however brief the reasons may be, must be read, into the provisions and this requirement is not merely confined to the cases where the Collector is considering the reports submitted by the authorised officer, but such requirement is also necessary while the Collector himself is dealing with the matter by holding an enquiry." 6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in O.U.Sindha Madhar V. The Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravida Welfare Land Acquisition, Tenkasi, Nellai Kattabomman District and others, (2004) 3 M.L.J. 262 , wherein it is held as follows: “The Collector's satisfaction is the indispensable factor to justify the acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978. The record of such satisfaction must be there in clear terms." 7. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners invites the attention of this Court to the decision V.Sarangapani (deceased) and others V. Collector of Thanjavur District, Thanjavur and others, (2006) 2 M.L.J. 606 at page 607 & 608, wherein it is observed as follows: "The fact that the award enquiry has been initiated or that the award has been passed will not cure the basic error in passing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The initiation of the notification itself is at fault for the aforesaid reason and therefore, the respondents cannot shield themselves by stating that the award enquiry has been initiated and order has been passed. The incurable defect in passing the notification under Section 4(1), cannot therefore be justified in the eye of law. In similar circumstances, this Court in an unreported decision in W.P. No. 23777 of 2001, by order dated 14.12.2001, has set aside the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, even after the passing of the award and paragraph 8 of the said order dated 14.12.2001 reads as follows: 8. In the present case, as stated above, no such particulars have been given. Hence, the impugned notice in Form No. I dated 29.6.2001 cannot be sustained. Though the petitioner has filed this writ petition after passing of the award, from the facts stated above, she could not file the said writ petition for want of copies of the notification and notice as they have not been supplied Page 226 in response to her request. Hence, the respondents cannot sustain the notice in Form No. I. I am not dealing with the other arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. If the respondents still want the land to be acquired, they can do so after following procedure contemplated under the Act. W.M.P.. No. 35117 of 2001 is closed. No costs." 8. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. If the respondents still want the land to be acquired, they can do so after following procedure contemplated under the Act. W.M.P.. No. 35117 of 2001 is closed. No costs." 8. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Villupuram has decided to acquire the lands only after the Gazette publication. Further, the revenue records stood in the name of Gajalakshmi (Petitioner in WP.9144/2005), Vasanthi (Petitioner in WP.9145/2005), Radhakrishnan (Petitioner in WP.9146/2005), Chandra (Petitioner in WP.9147/2005), Venugopal (Petitioner in WP.9148/2005), Subramani (Petitioner in WP.9149/ 2005) and as such, they are entitled to notice. 9. The legal plea projected on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Respondents failed to appreciate that before publishing a notice under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, the 2nd Respondent/District Collector or any officer authorised, on his behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who is, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised is interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired. Also that, under Section 4(3) of the Act, the District Collector after calling upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, has to pass such orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown. 10. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 submits that on the representations made by the Adi dravidars of Manakuppam Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District, for the provision of house site pattas to the houseless Adi Dravidars, the census of the Adi dravidars habitation were made and the list of houseless Adi dravidars were identified and as such, 131 houseless Adi dravidars were identified and as there is no suitable poramboke land was available for providing house sites to the Adi dravidars, the patta lands in different survey numbers measuring a total extent of 3.08.0 hectares were selected for acquisition. 11. 11. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents strenuously contends that after a thorough inspection and enquiry made by the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Ulundurpet, necessary proposals were sent to the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Villupuram and the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, through his proceedings dated 21.09.2003 authorised the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Ulundurpet to initiate proceedings under Section 4(2) and Section 4(3)(B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 31 of 1978. 12. It is the stand of the Respondents that under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 11978, notices were sent to the land owners fixing the enquiry as 23.10.2003 at the Village Administrative Officer's Office, Manakuppam and that the land owners except Tmt.Chandra and Tmt.Vasanthi, all other land owners appeared for the enquiry. Objection statement was given by the land owners. The 2nd Respondent/District Collector overruled the objections of the land owners in proceedings No.M5/24922/2000 dated 12.01.2005 as there were no valid and reasonable objections. In turn, the 2nd Respondent/ District Collector ordered for the publication of Gazette Notification and the Notification was published in the Villupuram District Gazette No.1 dated 13.01.2005. The contents of the 4(1) Notification was published in the village on 12.02.2005. Moreover, the value for the Acquisition lands were fixed in accordance with the rules. 13. Apart from the above, an Award Enquiry Notice in Form-III under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978 fixing the Award enquiry date on 15.03.2005 was sent to the land owners. The land owners refused to receive the notice. As such, the notice was served by affixure at their residences. Award enquiry was conducted on 15.03.2005. The land owners Radhakrishnan and Subramanian as their own and one Sambandam on behalf of Chandra and Radhakrishnan on behalf of Gajalakshmi were attended and furnished their statements. The Award was pronounced on 24.03.2005. Notices as per the Act 31 of 1978 were sent to the land owners. The land owners had not turned up for receiving the compensation and necessary changes in the Village Accounts regarding acquisition of lands have been carried out as Adi dravidar Colony Natham and the possession of the land was taken on 25.03.2005. However, on 04.04.2005, orders of interim injunction were received from this Court in WPMP.Nos.9929, 9931, 9933, 9935, 9937 and 9939 of 2005 dated 18.03.2005. 14. However, on 04.04.2005, orders of interim injunction were received from this Court in WPMP.Nos.9929, 9931, 9933, 9935, 9937 and 9939 of 2005 dated 18.03.2005. 14. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner (Gajalakshmi) in W.P.No.9144 of 2005 is the wife of Radhakrishnan, who is the landlord of the village Manakuppam and notices intended to Radhakrishnan and his wife were received by the Petitioner's husband viz., Radhakrishnan. The Petitioner admitted that the information regarding the Land Acquisition was known to her through her husband. Also that, notices under Section 4(2) were served to the land owner. Radhakrishnan, husband of the Writ Petitioner (Gajalakshmi) received the notice. Gajalakshmi appeared for the enquiry. Prior to enquiry, she filed her written objections along with the other land owners. The objections received were taken into account and only after due enquiry objections were overruled by the 2nd Respondent/District Collector and ordered for publication of 4(1) Notification in proceedings No.M5/ 24922/2000 dated 12.01.2005. In fact, the Notification was sent for publication in the Gazette and published on 13.01.2005. 15. The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents also invites this Court that a meagre extent of 0.24.0, 0.18.5, 1.71.0, 0.47.0, 0.47.0, 0.47.0 hectares of dry lands, out of vast extent of lands, alone have been acquired and more importantly, the compensation for the acquired lands were awarded to the Petitioners. In any event, before initiation of the Land Acquisition Proceedings, a survey in regard to the houseless Adi dravidars was made in the existing inhabitant area and found 131 houseless Adi dravidars were to be provided house site. 16. It is to be noted that Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 enjoins the District Collector, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire some land for the Harijan Welfare Scheme, by publishing a notice in the District Gazette pointing out to the effect that he has decided to acquire it in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4(2) of the Act obliges the District 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 why it should not be acquired. Section 4(2) of the Act obliges the District 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 why it should not be acquired. Where the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), clause (a) of sub-section (3) requires him to pass orders on the cause so shown etc. The ingredients of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, therefore, substantially encapsulate the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the only big difference is that, under the said Act, it is the District Collector and not the State Government who must be satisfied that the land is required to be acquired. 17. It is to be noted that Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) envisages that the land in respect of which notice under Section 4(1) is published vests absolutely in the State Government on and from the date of such publication. It is needless for this Court to make a significant mention that every individual having an interest in such land is by reason of Section 6 is entitled to receive compensation. 18. No wonder, Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 speaks to the effect that where the amount thereof is not paid or deposited on or before the taking of possession of the land, interest thereon is payable at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking possession until payment or deposit as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu V. Ananthi Ammal, AIR 1995 SC 2214. 19. A meticulous perusal of the entire file in M5/24922/2000 of the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Villupuram (in respect of Land Acquisition Proceedings and for the purpose of providing house site to Adi dravidars of Manakuppam Village, Villupuram District) shows that the District Collector has rejected the objections of land owners as per proceedings dated 12.01.2005. 19. A meticulous perusal of the entire file in M5/24922/2000 of the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Villupuram (in respect of Land Acquisition Proceedings and for the purpose of providing house site to Adi dravidars of Manakuppam Village, Villupuram District) shows that the District Collector has rejected the objections of land owners as per proceedings dated 12.01.2005. Further, he accepted the recommendation of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) in respect of punja lands measuring a total extent of 3.08 hectares in various survey numbers in Manakuppam Village and ordered for publication of Section 4(1) Notification under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) in the District Gazette. 20. It comes to be known that the true copy of the 2nd Respondent/District Collector's proceedings undated was signed on behalf of the District Collector on 18.01.2005. It also transpires from the record (Hand written proceedings in Tamil) of the District Collector dated 12.01.2005 in this regard was sent to the five land owners with a copy being marked to Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Ulundurpet, on 19.01.2005. 21. At this juncture, this Court perused the Notification issued by the District Collector, the Villupuram District Gazette, Extraordinary Published by Authority in M5/24922/2000 dated 13.01.2005 Form-II (See Rule 13 (III)) whereby notice under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 was issued in respect of the lands acquired (more particularly described in the schedule comprised in various survey numbers, measuring a total extent of 3.08.0 hectares relating to the Writ Petitioners) which bears the date as 11th January 2005 at Villupuram. 22. It cannot be gainsaid that the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent/District Collector in regard to the rejection of the land owners objections opposing of an order for publication of Section 4(1) Notification under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 bears the date 12.01.2005 on which date obviously the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Villupuram has signed. The moot query that arises for one's rumination is that when the 2nd Respondent/District Collector issued proceedings dated 12.01.2005 overruling the objections of land owners and ordered publication of Section 4(1) Notification in the District Gazette, then, it passes beyond one's comprehension as to how the Villupuram District Gazette Extraordinary relating to Section 4(1) Notice mentions the date as 11th January 2005'. 23. 23. Another adverse circumstance against the Respondents is that it is evident from the records that though the letter of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.M.5/24922/2000 dated 12.01.2005 addressed to Branch Manager, Government Press, Virudhachalam refers to the request being made for publication of Section 4(1) Notification under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and the same was published in District January Month Gazette, dated 13.01.2005. The said letter was sent only on 19.01.2005 as per the Despatch Endorsement Seal (in fact, the said letter signed by the Special Tahsildar (L.A.), District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Villupuram on 18.01.2005). If really, the said letter of the 2nd Respondent dated 12.01.2005, as stated supra, was sent to the Government Press, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District for publication of Section 4(1) Notice in the January Month 2004 District Gazette (actually, it must be January, 2005 District Gazette) and the same was sent on 19.01.2005. By no stretch of imagination, Section 4(1) Notice in the January District Gazette ought not to have been published on 13.01.2005. In any event, when the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent/District Collector were signed by him only on 12.01.2005, then, the Villupuram District Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 should not bear the date as 11th January 2005', as opined by this Court. In this regard, obviously an apparent error on record had crept in, as opined by this Court. 24. Ordinarily, the Gazette Notification will have to be presumed to be published on the day that appears on its face. In fact, Land Acquisition Proceedings commence with the publication of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act 31 of 1978. However, this is a rebuttal presumption, as opined by this Court. Further, when a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act proves that the Petitioners' name have been specified as owners, lands to be acquired. It is the duty of the Respondents to serve notice for enquiry under Section 5A to the Petitioners. Simple mentioning that the Petitioners have been served will not be enough. Section 4(1) publication of Notice in Official Gazette is a condition precedent for acquiring land. It cannot be ignored that the prosecution under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be raised that official acts have been properly done unless proved otherwise. Simple mentioning that the Petitioners have been served will not be enough. Section 4(1) publication of Notice in Official Gazette is a condition precedent for acquiring land. It cannot be ignored that the prosecution under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be raised that official acts have been properly done unless proved otherwise. The satisfaction in terms of Section 4(1) by the District Collector is essential one and any violation in this regard would render the proceedings void. Also that, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to send notice to such persons whose names which entered into records of rights and not to those, whose names do not figured in a record of rights, but who holds some interest in lands notified for acquisition. 25. One cannot brush aside an important fact that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 are summary in nature and the ingredients of the said Act are to be followed in true letter and spirit. Any omission or failure to comply with the requirements contemplated under the Act will result in quashing the order assailed before a Court of Law in a given proceedings, as opined by this Court. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out that the land for acquisition for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme has to be initiated only under the Act 31 of 1978 as per the decision in K.Ramachandran V. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998-1-MLJ-112. 26. Earlier, this Court, on 18.03.2005, in W.P.M.P.Nos.9929, 9931, 9133, 9935, 9937 and 9939 of 2005, granted interim injunction in favour of the Writ Petitioners, by restraining the Respondents, their men, agents etc. from disturbing their possession of their lands in respective survey numbers in Manakuppam Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District. 27. 26. Earlier, this Court, on 18.03.2005, in W.P.M.P.Nos.9929, 9931, 9133, 9935, 9937 and 9939 of 2005, granted interim injunction in favour of the Writ Petitioners, by restraining the Respondents, their men, agents etc. from disturbing their possession of their lands in respective survey numbers in Manakuppam Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District. 27. In view of the fact that the 2nd Respondent/District Collector has signed the proceedings on 12.01.2005 [pertaining to the publication of Section 4(1) Notice in the District Gazette] and even though the Notification published in the Villupuram District Gazette relating to Section 4(1) Notice under the Act 31 of 1978 bears the date as 11.01.2005' mentioning the Station as 'Villupuram', certainly, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that there appears to be a case of non application of mind by the concerned authorities in this regard and all the more, the Gazette Publication Notification mentioning the date as 11.01.2005' is not a proper and correct one. Per contra, the same is per se not legal, as opined by this Court. It appears that this is an incurable defect in issuing the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act especially when the 2nd Respondent/District Collector has signed the proceedings for ordering the Gazette Publication under Section 4(1) Notification on 12.01.2005. Even though the said Notification was published on 13.01.2005, in reality, the 2nd Respondent/District Collector only signed the proceedings on 12.01.2005 as stated supra. As such, this Court sets aside the impugned Notification dated 13.01.2005 on this score. Even on a different count, when the 2nd Respondent/District Collector's proceedings dated 12.01.2005 has been sent to the Government Press for Publication on 19.01.2005, then, in any event, the Gazette Notification ought not to have been published on 13.01.2005. 28. In regard to the plea of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that no notice was issued to the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.9144, 9145 and 9147 of 2005, this Court points out that it is the stand of the Respondents that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.9144 of 2005 viz., Gajalakshmi, is the wife of Radhakrishnan (Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.9146 of 2005), who is the landlord of the village Manakuppam and the intended notices to him and his wife were received by him. Also that, Gajalakshmi has admitted that the information regarding the Land Acquisition was known to her through her husband. Also that, Gajalakshmi has admitted that the information regarding the Land Acquisition was known to her through her husband. Moreover, she took part in the enquiry and before that, she filed her objections along with other owners as pleaded by the Respondents. Furthermore, according to the Respondents, the land owners, viz., Radhakrishnan (Petitioner in W.P.No.9146/2005) and Subramani (Petitioner in W.P.No.9149/2005) and one Sambandam on behalf of the Writ Petitioner (Chandra) in W.P.No.9147/2005 and Radhakrishnan on behalf of Gajalakshmi (Petitioner in W.P.No.9144/ 2005) attended the enquiry and furnished their statements. That apart, the Respondents claimed that the land owners, who refuses to receive the notices, were served by affixture at their residences. It is not in dispute that the Award Enquiry was conducted on 15.03.2005 and further, the Award was passed on 24.03.2005. 29. In this connection, this Court relevantly points out that if a notice is served by the affixture, naturally, the endorsement should contain the reason for such the affixture and also the same should have been attested by the neighbouring land owners. Merely mentioning that the concerned land owners were served with affixture on account that they absented themselves continuously from their residences would not be enough. Even when the land owners had refused to receive the notices and therefore, the said notices were affixed on their residences also to be proved by the Respondents. Even though on the side of Respondents, they had not produced proof to show that the Writ Petitioners had received the notices, yet, in view of the fact that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.9146/2005, Petitioner in W.P.No.9149/2005 on their own and one Sambandam on behalf of Chandra Petitioner in W.P.No.9147/2005 and Radhakrishnan on behalf of his wife Gajalakshmi Petitioner in W.P.No.9144/2005 attended the enquiry and furnished their statements etc., this Court opines that it is not open to the Petitioners to take a plea that no notices were issued to them prior to the acquisition of their lands since they had acquiesced by their conduct. Their participation in the enquiry proceedings and furnishing of statements before the authorities were all adverse circumstance against them. Further, the land owners had not received the amount of compensation to which they are entitled to. Their participation in the enquiry proceedings and furnishing of statements before the authorities were all adverse circumstance against them. Further, the land owners had not received the amount of compensation to which they are entitled to. As such, the plea taken on behalf of the Writ Petitioners that no notice was issued to the Writ Petitioners and therefore, they are prejudiced and affected, is not accepted by this Court, because of the reason that they are estopped in this regard. Except the pleas of defective Gazette Notification and Non-issuance of Notice to the Writ Petitioners, no other grounds were urged on behalf of the Petitioners. Since this Court has set aside the impugned District Gazette Notification dated 13.01.2005, the Writ Petitions succeed. 30. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned Notification, issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) in Ref.No.M5/24922/2000 and published in the Villupuram District Gazette Extraordinary No.1 dated 13.01.2005, is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in these Writ Petitions. Since the impugned District Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) is set aside, the Award Enquiry initiated or the Award passed subsequently would not cure the primordial defect in issuing the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and therefore, the resultant Award Enquiry Proceedings dated 15.03.2005 and the subsequent passing of the Award dated 24.03.2005 are, as a logical corollary, quashed, insofar as the Writ Petitioners are concerned. However, it is open to the concerned authorities to proceed with the acquisition of land by taking fresh steps, if there is any need/necessity or if so required, by scrupulously following the ingredients of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) without any violation/deviation in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.