The court emphasized the importance of proper notice in land acquisition proceedings and considered the reasonableness of the delay in challenging such proceedings.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent award dated 1.12.1982 and 25.3.1983 respectively.

2. The disputed properties appertaining to S.No.183/3 and 184/1B belonged to one Ambujavalli Ayal, wife of Thillai Govindaraja Odayar. On the death of the owner, the properties were partitioned by a registered document No.2567 of 1960 dated 6.4.1960. As per the aforesaid partition, the disputed property fell to the share of one T. Javaveeraraja Odayar and it was indicated that after the death of said allottee, the property would devolve on the heirs of his sister Jalajaganthi Ayal. The petitioner is the only heir of the aforesaid Jalajaganthi and other two sisters of T. Jayaveeraraja Odayar did not have any issue. In respect of disputed property, ceiling proceedings had been initiated against T. Jayaveeraraja Odayar, and after his death on 15.4.1971, notices were issued to the present petitioner. Suit in O.S.No.40 of 1978 was filed by some other relatives for partition and such suit was resisted by the present petitioner on the ground that the property which had been allotted to T. Jayaveeraraja Udayar has devolved on the present petitioner after the death of Jayaveeraraja Udayar. The aforesaid contention was accepted by the trial court and has been confirmed by the High Court in AS.No.328 of 1981 on 27.11.1990. It has been asserted that a part of the disputed land was used as burial ground. It has been further asserted that maternal aunt of the petitioner was also buried in the disputed land in 1994. It is further claimed that in December, 1995, while the petitioner and his family members were offering guru pooja, the Village Administrative Officer and Menial informed the petitioner that the property had been acquired by the Government for providing house sites. On the basis of such information, the petitioner after further enquiry came to know that the impugned land acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the year 1982 and award had been passed in the year 1983 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It has been contended that the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated against Jayaveeraraja Odayar and his brothers out of whom two persons, Jayaveeraraja Odayar and his brother Thillai Muthappa Andiyappa Odayar had died long prior to the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. It has been asserted that no notice had been issued to the present petitioner and the land acquisition proceedings are void.

3. In the counter it has been indicated that some relations of the petitioner had appeared in the land acquisition proceedings and nothing had been intimated about the death of Jayaveeraraja Odayar or any other person. It has been further indicated that even though partition had been effected under a registered deed, land acquisition proceedings were initiated against the persons, whose names were found in the revenue records and, therefore, the absence of personal notice to the petitioner is of no consequence.

4. Initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act may not be bad at that stage even if some of the persons against whom such proceedings is initiated are dead, because the authority may not be aware of their death. However, once proceedings is initiated, thereafter the procedure contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is required to be followed which contemplates issuance of notice against the persons who are known to have interest in the land. The proceedings had been initiated inter alia against Jayaveeraraja Odayar. The fact that he was dead in 1971 as evident by the certificate issued by the appropriate authority is not in dispute. It is not understood as to how notice contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 4(b) of the rules was served. Similarly it is not understood as to how the notice relating to award was served when admittedl