Land acquisition proceedings stood vitiated.

1. In this writ petition the petitioners have chosen to question the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and also under Section 6 on the ground that the person interested has not been issued any notice. Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 12. 1991, it has been gazetted on 13. 1991, paper publication was made on 13. 1991, it was published in the locality on 13. 1991. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 16. 1991 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 26. 1991. The petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition after the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioners sister by name Mrs.Chinthamani, who has got a share in the property. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer has been informed of the above fact, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay of dispossession was ordered. However the award was passed on 211. 1992.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the name of the petitioners sister namely, Mrs.Chinthamani is not found in the revenue records during the course of the 5-A enquiry it has been brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer that she is one of the shareholders and she has got a share in the property. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has proceeded with the 5-A enquiry on the ground that she has neither appeared nor given any representation with respect to her rights. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground that no notice has been issued to Mrs. Chinthamani . He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in P.C.Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras-1 and another, 1989 T.L.N.J. 107 wherein it is held as follows:

"Though it is incumbent upon the Revenue to keep their records up to date by effecting mutation of names reflecting the actual state of affairs by showing the persons really interested in the land in their records, yet in a few cases it may so happen that the revenue records are not made up to date and the person who is really interested in the land may not receive any notice from the Collector for the enquiry under S. 5 A of the Act. In such cases, if it is brought to the notice of the Collector by the erstwhile land owner or by any other person, including the present owner thereof of the name of the interested persons, the Collector as a statutory functionary The learned counsel relying upon the observation made by the Full Bench has argued that there is a duty cast upon the Collector .to issue a notice to the sister of the petitioners when it was brought to the notice of the Officer that she is the person interested and he has further argued that non-issuance of notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Sufficient time has been granted to the Government-Advocate to produce the records to verify whether notice has been issued to Mrs.Chinthamani. But no records have been produced on behalf of the respondents. Learned Government Advocate has argued that as the name of Mrs.Chinthamani was not found in the revenue records, it is not necessary on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue a notice. In another reported judgment in Tamilarasan, P. v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Commissioner & Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, 1999 (1) C.T.C. 586, a learned single Judge of this Court, following the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court held that notice is necessary, if it is brought to the notice of the enquiring officer that the concerned person is interested and non-issuance of notice to the person interested is in violation of the principles of natural justice, when it is brought to the notice of the concerned Land Acquisition Officer during the proceedings under Section 5-A. In this case it is apparent that no notice has been issued to Mrs.Chinthamani, even though it has been brought to the notice of the Land Acquisiti