Strict compliance with statutory service rules required for land acquisition notice; unauthorised manager could not validly accept service.

Service of a Section 12(2) notice under the Land Acquisition Act must comply strictly with the statutory mode of service, which requires service on the person named where practicable and resort to substituted service only if that person cannot be found. Service on the manager of the receiver's office was invalid because the receiver was absent and the manager was not shown to be authorised to accept service. Even on the assumption that the Code of Civil Procedure applied through Section 53, personal service remained the rule unless an agent was duly empowered in the manner required by procedural law. The appeal succeeded because the notice was not validly served.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was validly served on the manager of the receiver's office in the absence of the receiver.

Analysis: The service provisions in the Land Acquisition Act required service, where practicable, on the person named, and service in the alternative manner only when that person could not be found. The Court held that this statutory requirement had not been complied with. Even assuming the Code of Civil Procedure applied through Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, service was still invalid because personal service was the rule unless the person to be served had an agent empowered to accept service. A mere assumption of authority in the manager, without a written appointment by the principal, did not satisfy the requirement for valid service.

Conclusion: The service of notice was invalid and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific mode of service, that mode must be strictly followed, and an agent can accept service only if duly empowered in the manner required by the applicable procedural law.

---