Acquiring authorities have a duty to issue notice to interested persons who are not disclosed in the revenue records when they are made aware of their interest in the property.

This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No.11776 of 1999, dated 7. 1999.

2. In the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner had sought for quashing the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in G.O.(3-D) No.48, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 7. 1996, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 37. 1996 and declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in

G.O. (3-D) No.41, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 11. 1997; published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 111. 1997.

3. Theshort facts which are sufficient for disposal of this appeal are that Sec.4(1) notification of the Act was issued on 37. 1996. The name of Krishnan Reddiar, father of the writ petitioner was disclosed as the owner of the land in the revenue records and therefore, his name was alone shown as the owner of the land and notice furring under Sec.5-A of the Act also appeared to have been sent only in the name of Krishnan Reddiar. However, according to the writ petitioner, Krishnan Reddiar died in the year 1992 itself and that the petitioner, being the sole heir of Krishnan Reddiar, was the real owner of the property. Though the enquiry was fixed on 16. 1997, the enquiry was adjourned for a further date. The writ petitioner represented by his letter dated 26. 1997, contending that he has not received any notice. No notice, of the enquiry has been served on him. Therefore, he requested that he may be permitted to see the records and subsequently, a date may be fixed for further hearing. However, without any further notice, the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act appears to have been conducted on 30.6.1997 and orders were also passed on 7. 1997 agreeing with the proposal for acquisition. Subsequently, the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act came to be passed on 11. 1997.

4. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy appearing for the appellant/petitioner contends that even though no mutation was carried out in the revenue records after the death of the petitioners’ father, however, the acquiring authorities have been informed about the interest of the petitioner over the property, even before Sec.5-A enquiry of the Act was completed. The respondents were duty bound to hear the appellant also, inasmuch as they have been informed about his interest over the property and that he was the present owner of the property. Learned counsel also relies on the observations contained in Thanikavelu v. Special Deputy Collector (1989)1 MLJ. 222 (F.B.).

5. Mr.D.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader contends that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, namely, that even before the completion of the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner was aware of the tendency of the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner ought to have forward his objections. Not having done so, he cannot be heard to complain that he had no opportunity to appear for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act.

6. It is true that the acquitting authorities are not under any obligation to make any separate enquiry as regards the interested persons beyond the names disclosed in the revenue records. But, having regard to the wide and sweeping of the definition of ‘interested persons’, as contained in the Act, though no duty in cast upon the authorities to make any independent enquiry beyond the names disclosed in the revenue records, yet, series of authorities, by this court as well as Supreme Court, have considerably held that when once the acquiring authority is made aware of the interested persons other than the names contained in the revenue records, it was the duty on the part of the acquiring authority to issue notice to the concerned interested persons.

7. A Full Bench of this Court, in the abovesaid judgment relied on by learned counsel for the appellant, has specifically held that in cases where a person