1. The question in this appeal is whether the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was properly served on the manager of the office of the Receiver of Nidadavole and Medur Estate in the absence of the Receiver. Section 45 (2) of the Act provides that service is to be made, whenever it maybe practicable, on the person named therein, and when such person cannot be four d, in the manner provided in subsection (3). It is not suggested in the present case that service has been effected in conformity to Section 45.
2. If reliance is placed on Section 53 of the Act, that Section merely provides: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act'. Is 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 Civil Procedure Code, 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 III, rule 6 (l), which was Ssection 41 of the old Code, provides that, in addition to the recognized agents described in rule 2 of that Order which does not apply, any person residing within the jurisdiction of the Court may be appointed an 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.