Judgment : 1. The petitioner as well as the respondents in these writ petitions are one and the same, the learned counsel for both sides have advanced common arguments in support of their respective case, therefore, by consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners seek to quash the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called as the Act, published vide G.O. Ms. No.173 dated 08.10.2012 issued by the first respondent and the consequential declaration made under Section 6 in G.O. Ms. No.243 dated 23.09.2013 in so far as they relate to acquisition of the petitioners' land are concerned. 3. For the purpose of establishment of a Fisheries University and Institute of Fisheries Technology in Nagoor (Muttam) Village, Nagapattinam Taluk and District, the respondents have proposed to acquire lands measuring a total extent of 36.42.5 hectares in various survey numbers owned by various persons, including the lands of the petitioners. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued vide G.O. Ms. No.173 dated 08.10.2012 and ultimately the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23.09.2013. According to the petitioners, they were not served with any notice even though they have purchased the lands in question during 2009/2010 by various sale deeds and therefore, they seek to quash the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to their land. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would mainly contend that the respective writ petitioners have purchased the lands in question by means of registered sale deeds commencing from 09.10.2009 to 15.02.2010. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, even though the petitioners have purchased the lands during October 2009 to February 2010 itself, in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 08.10.2012, the name of the petitioners have not been incorporated and no notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act was given to them. Equally, the petitioners were not issued with any notice for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Further, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners in the enqujiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section was made under Section 6 of the Act on 23.09.2013. Equally, the petitioners were not issued with any notice for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Further, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners in the enqujiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section was made under Section 6 of the Act on 23.09.2013. In the meantime, on 05.06.2012, patta was issued to the petitioners under Patta No.808 and 809. Subsequent to issuance of patta only, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued and published on 17.10.2012. Consequentially, the declaration was made in the Government gazzette on 23.09.2013. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act are liable to be set aside for non-service of notice to the petitioners. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Muthu vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Madras – 2) reported in 1986 Writ Law Reporter 391 to contend that the service of notice contemplated under Section 45 of the Act is mandatory under law. It was further pointed out that only after an attempt to serve the notice on the party to the acquisition proceedings, resort should be made to serve notice by affixture. 6. The learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (S. Muthurajan and 3 others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai and another) reported in 2001 (4) CTC 12 and 2001 (3) MLJ 357 wherein it was held that when the name of the owner or person in occupation of the land has not been mentioned in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, even though there was a change in the revenue registry and the corresponding entry of the name of the owner much prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, hence, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 7. Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is not an ordinary enquiry and it is a mandatory enquiry to be conducted to seek the objection of the land owner. 7. Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is not an ordinary enquiry and it is a mandatory enquiry to be conducted to seek the objection of the land owner. When the notice was not issued to the petitioners for such enquiry, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Further, the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. While so, the non-service of notice to the petitioner company vitiates the entire proceedings. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that atleast the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has to be commenced afresh in so far as the petitioners are concerned. 8. The second respondents has filed a counter affidavit along with a petition for vacating the interim injunction granted by this Court on 22.10.2013 in MP No. 3 of 2013. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, relying on the counter affidavit, would contend that even as early as on 04.11.2011, the Tahsildar had sent a proposal for acquisition of the lands in question to the Revenue Divisional Officer. In that proposal, the lands owned by the petitioners were also mentioned. Further, the name of the vendors of the petitioners' has also been mentioned therein. Even though the petitioners' claimed to have purchased the lands during the year 2009/2010, their names have not been mutated in the revenue records and therefore, the names of the vendors of the petitioners' has been indicated therein. On receipt of such proposal sent by the Tahsildar, immediately, the Revenue Divisional Officer, sent a proposal on 05.11.2011 to the District Collector in which also the name of the vendors of the petitioners has been duly incorporated. Thereafter, on 17.11.2011, the District Collector forwarded a proposal to the Commissioner of Land Reforms in which also the name of the petitioners' vendor has been incorporated. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, in turn, sent a proposal on 03.12.2011 to the Government. Thereafter, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act came to be issued on 08.10.2012 in GO Ms. No.173, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department. In the interregnum period, on 05.06.2012, patta was issued in favour of the petitioners . 9. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, in turn, sent a proposal on 03.12.2011 to the Government. Thereafter, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act came to be issued on 08.10.2012 in GO Ms. No.173, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department. In the interregnum period, on 05.06.2012, patta was issued in favour of the petitioners . 9. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that for the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, a notice dated 31.12.2012 was sent to the petitioners on 04.01.2013 by registered post calling upon them to attend the enquiry on 17.01.2013. The said letter was sent to the correct address of the petitioners as has been indicated in the sale deeds i.e., Mr. G. Ramesh Babu, who represented the petitioner company in getting the sale deeds executed. Thereofore, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-service of notice. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that a draft preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was prepared and at that time, the name of the petitioners did not find place in the revenue records such as Adangal, Chitta etc., Therefore, the name of the petitioners have not been incorporated in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. However, in the declaration made under Section 6 (1) of the Act, name of the petitioners have been duly incorporated. The petitioners' lands have been notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act which was also widely published in one issue of Tamil Daily Thinaboomi on 13.10.2012 and Thinamani on 13.10.2012 as well as the English Daily The Hindu, but the petitioners have not taken any steps to make any objection to the acquisition proceedings. Besides the above publications, local publicity with respect to the acquisition proceedings has also been made. In fact, for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, notice was issued on 31.12.2012 by registered post calling upon the petitioners to attend the enquiry. The said notice dated 31.12.2012 was sent to the correct address of the petitioners as mentioned in the sale deeds. However, the notice was returned as no such addressee and consequently the petitioners did not participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The said notice dated 31.12.2012 was sent to the correct address of the petitioners as mentioned in the sale deeds. However, the notice was returned as no such addressee and consequently the petitioners did not participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. However, all the other land owners have attended the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on receipt of notice sent by the land acquisition officer. Therefore, the fact that the notice sent to the correct address of the petitioners was returned would indicate that the petitioners are not in possession of the property in question or any representative is looking after the lands. In any event, all the formalities have been duly completed before conducting the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Theefore, the learned Additional Advocate General would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. As directed by this Court, the entire file pertaining to the acquisition proceedings in question have been produced before this Court. I perused the original files. 12. From the perusal of the files, it could be seen that the acquisition proceedings commenced way back in the year 2011 by a proposal sent by the Tahsildar on 04.11.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer in turn forwarded a proposal to the District Collector, who in turn forwarded it to the Commissioner of Land Reforms. The Commissioner of Land Reforms in turn forwarded the proposal for acquisition of the lands to the Government on 03.12.2011. In all these proceedings, on perusal of the files, it could be seen that the name of the vendors of the petitioners have been mentioned. Admittedly, even according to the petitioners, the revenue records have not been mutated till such time though they have purchased the lands during 2009/2010 as the case may be. In other words, soon after purchase, the petitioners have not chosen to mutate the revenue records to obtain patta, chitta or adangal in their name. The proposal which emanated from the Tahsildar level did contain the name of the vendors of the petitioners. Of course, the matter was pending before the Government from 03.12.2011 and ultimately, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 17.10.2012. The proposal which emanated from the Tahsildar level did contain the name of the vendors of the petitioners. Of course, the matter was pending before the Government from 03.12.2011 and ultimately, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 17.10.2012. In the meantime, the petitioners' have obtained patta Nos. 808 and 809 in their name. Thus, on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act the petitioners' have not changed the revenue records in their name therefore, their names did not find place in the column relating to land owners because the original proposal was made by the Tahsildar on 04.11.2011 which was forwarded to various departments till the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the Government. Therefore, the name of the vendors of the petitioners' alone was incorporated in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Upon mutation of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, notice was sent to the petitioners for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by a notice dated 31.12.2012 by registered post to the authorised representative of the petitioner Ramesh Babu as has been mentioned in the sale deeds. This notice has been sent to the correct address as has been indicated in the sale deeds. The notice was returned with an endorsement “no such addressee” with the result, the petitioners could not participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Whereas, from the perusal of the files, I am able to see that for all the other land owners notice was issued and they have participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 13. In this context, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Muthu vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Madras – 2) reported in 1986 Writ Law Reporter 391 wherein this Court held that service of notice, as requried under Section 45 of the Act is mandatory and such service should be made in a manner known to law. It was further held that service on the person concerned by delivering or tendering a copy of the notice shall be first attempted. It was further held that service on the person concerned by delivering or tendering a copy of the notice shall be first attempted. Only when such service is not feasible, the other modes of service as contemplated in sub-section 3 of Section 45 should be resorted to. In the said decision, this Court held as follows:- “It is not claimed that service by delivering or tendering the copy of the notice on the petitioner in person was attempted as contemplated under sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Sec. 45 of the Act. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 45 of the Act contemplates and lays down other modes of service only when such person cannot be found. The service of any notice under the Act in the manner provided therein is a mandate of law, and the due procedure and modalities having been evolved, there cannot be a by-passing of the same by the official, and if they do so, they will be opening the gates for challenge of the proceedings as an illegality. It is not up to the officials to choose modes of service as suit them, if they do not conform to the statutory norms. As contemplated in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Sec. 45 , service on the person concerned by delivering or tendering a copy of the notice shall be first attempted. Only when such service is not feasible, on the ground that such person cannot be found, the other modes of service as contemplated in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 45 should be resorted to. If the person cannot be found, service on an adult male member of the family should be attempted, and if no such adult male member can be found, then only service by affixture 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 who signed the notice or in Collector's office or in the court house should be done'. In such a case, in addition to the above modes, affixture of the copy of the notice in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired should also be done. The proviso to subsec. In such a case, in addition to the above modes, affixture of the copy of the notice in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired should also be done. The proviso to subsec. (3) says that the notice may, if the Collector or the Judge so directs, be sent by registered post in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of business. It is not the case of the authorities that there was attempt to reach and serve the petitioner at his last known address. Equally so, service by post was also not resorted to. The set of expressions 'when such person cannot be found occurring in sub-sec. (3) in the context could mean only when such person cannot be found in the place where he ordinarily dwells or carries on business. Merely on the ground that such person is non-resident of the village, Sec. 45(3) does not enable the authorities to resort to a mode of service by affixture in the land' subject matter of acquisition. 3. Enquiry under S. 5A of the Act is not an empty formality and notice for such enquiry has got to be served strictly in accordance with the mandates of Sec. 45 of .the Act. While discountenancing the service of notice in a casual manner without adhering to the rigor of the provisions of the Act, I have opined in Church of South India Trust Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No.1848 of 1979 order dt. 24-9-1981 briefly reported in (1982) 95 Mad LW (Summary of Cases) 87 that the prescriptions of the statute in the matter of service of notices under it should be strictly followed and carried out. It must be satisfied that the person concerned could not be found after reasonable and diligent enquiries within the meaning of the Act. The mandates of the statute stand violated in the present case. This obliges me to interfere in writ jurisdiction and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. It is for the authorities to pursue the matter from the stage of the enquiry under S. 5A of the Act and after duly satisfying the requisite statutory formalities. I make no order as to costs. 14. This obliges me to interfere in writ jurisdiction and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. It is for the authorities to pursue the matter from the stage of the enquiry under S. 5A of the Act and after duly satisfying the requisite statutory formalities. I make no order as to costs. 14. Relying on the above decision, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per the Rules, service should be made in accordance with the modes prescribed therein. In this case, it is claimed that a notice dated 31.12.2012 was sent to the petitioners by registered post but that was returned. Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any steps to serve notice on the petitioners as contemplated under the Act and Rules before conducting the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 15. Even according to the respondents, when the notice dated 31.12.2012 sent to the petitioners were returned, they have not taken any steps to serve notice on the petitioners by following the other modes prescribed under Section 45 (3) of the Act. As held by this Court in the decision mentioned supra, first, a notice should be served on the person concerned and when it is not feasible, then resort should be made to serve notice by means of affixture. In this case, a perusal of the file would disclose that the respondents have not taken any steps to serve notice either in person or by means of affixture before conducting the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In other words, the respondents seems to have resorted to send only a notice by registered post but they have not taken steps to serve such notice either in person or by affixture, when once the notice sent by registered post was returned. As held by this Court in the decision mentioned supra, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not an empty formality but it is a mandatory enquiry required to be conducted to hear the objections of the land owners before acquiring their valuable lands. Therefore, this Court feels that after the notice sent by registered post was returned, the respondents ought to have resorted to serve notice either in person or by affixture, being the other mode prescribed under Section 45 (3) of the Act. Therefore, this Court feels that after the notice sent by registered post was returned, the respondents ought to have resorted to serve notice either in person or by affixture, being the other mode prescribed under Section 45 (3) of the Act. This is more so that at the stage of conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the names of the petitioners have been incorporated in the revenue records and the respondents are well aware about the ownership of the petitioners. Admittedly, either from the files or from the counter, I am unable to see that the respondents have resorted to any other modes of service after the notice dated 31.12.2012 was returned unserved or before that in any manner known to law. 16. In the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of (S. Muthurajan and 3 others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai and another) reported in 2001 (4) CTC 12 and 2001 (3) MLJ 357 in para No.6, it was held as follows:- “6. Coming to the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased the lands sought to be acquired under the land acquisition proceedings under challenge as early as on 8.2.89 and the mutation also was effected and pattas also granted on 30.3.89 much prior to Section 4(1) notification, which was notified in the Government Gazette on 19.6.91. The only contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that, on the date when the proposal was sent to the Government during the year 1988, the petitioners were not the owners and hence they are not entitled to be heard in the 5-A enquiry nor their names be included in Section 4(1) notification. In view of the discussion above, the said contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted. It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of Mohan, J. reported in Bhama Ramamoorthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, wherein the learned Judge has held that when the name of the owner was not included in Section 4(1) notification even though there was a change in the revenue registry and the corresponding entry of the name of the owner much prior to the 4(1) notification, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In view of the above, the land acquisition proceedings are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.” 17. In the present case on hand, on the basis of the mutation of the names of the petitioners, notice was sent to them for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the respondents are aware of the ownership of the lands by the petitioners. However, the service of notice is not proper inasmuch as the respondents have not resorted to serve notice on them soon after the notice dated 31.12.2012 has been returned unserved. 18. Similarly, in the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, the name of the petitoiners has been included. However, when the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in so far as the petitioners is vitated for improper service of notice, the consequential declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 23.01.2013 cannot be sustained. This is more so that when the notice dated 31.12.2012 sent to the petitioners on 04.01.2013 was returned unserved, till the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 23.01.2013, the respondents have not taken any steps to serve the notice. Therefore, I hold that while the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act cannot be interfered with by this Court, definitely, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and the consequential declaration made under Section 6 of the Act are vitiated for non-service of notice in so far as the petitioners alone are concerned. 19. In the result, while upholding the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act published in Government of Tamil Nadu Gazzette in Part II – Section 2 (41) in G.O. Ms. No.173, Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries (FS-4) dated 08.10.2012 as valid, the consequential declaration made by the respondents under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Extraordinary in Part-II – Section 2 (274) in G.O. Ms. No.243, Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries (FS-4) dated 23.09.2013 is set aside in so far as it relates to the acquisition of lands of the petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are partly allowed. No costs. No.243, Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries (FS-4) dated 23.09.2013 is set aside in so far as it relates to the acquisition of lands of the petitioners. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are partly allowed. No costs. It is made clear that the respondents shall conduct enquiry from the stage as contemplated under 5-A of the Act in so far as the petitioners alone are concerned, afford opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections and then proceed further in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.