AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question in this appeal is whether the notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was properly served on the Manager of the Office of the
Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estates in the absence of the Receiver. Section 45(2) of the Act provides that service is to be made whenever
it may be practicable on the person named therein, and when such person cannot be found in the manner provided in Sub-section (3). It is not
suggested in the present case that service had been effected in conformity to Section 45.
If reliance is placed on Section 53 of the Act, that section merely provides "" save in so far they may be inconsistent with anything contained in
this Act. the provisions of the CPC shall apply to all proceedings before the court under this Act. "" It is open to question whether the provisions of
the Code can be taken to apply to the notice in question by virtue of this section. Assuming that they can, we are of opinion that they have not been
complied with. Order V. Rule 12 of the CPC provides for service in person unless the person to be served has an agent empowered to accept
service. That was Section 75 of the old Code. Order 3 Rule 6(1) which was Section 41 of the old Code provides that, in addition to the
recognised agents described in Rule 2 of that Order which does not apply, any person residing within the jurisdiction of the Court may be
appointed as agent to accept service of process but under the next sub-rule such appointment must be made by an instrument in writing signed by
the principal. There is no such appointment in writing in the present case, and even assuming that the Manager had the Receiver''s authority to
accept service of notices or processes, still that would not, in our opinion, make this a good service. We must, therefore, allow the appeal and
reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law, with costs payable in three months.