The Order of the Court was as follows :

Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

He purchased under Registered Sale Deed dated 31-12-1986 agricultural lands in Survey No. 332/1 from M/s. Subramaniam, Paramasivam and Kannan situated in Pernampet Village, Gudiattam Taluk, North Arcot District. Subsequent to the purchase of the said land he had effected change in all the Revenue Records and other authorities. He is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands right from the date of his purchase. While so, he received a notice from the third respondent herein dated 20-9-1991 inter alia stating that the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been wrongly given to his vendors and petitioner was directed to meet him to collect the amount which has been refunded by the vendors. It is further stated that only when he received the above-mentioned notice on 22-9-1991 he came to know that proceedings by the respondents under Land Acquisition Act. The entire proceedings have been initiated behind his back. Even though the lands under acquisition are under his enjoyment and possession right from 1986, the respondents failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Act by issuing notice to the petitioner and hearing his objections. In such circumstance, having no other remedy has filed the above writ petition.

3. None of the respondents have chosen to file counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. However, relevant records have been placed for perusal of the Court.

4. In the light of the above factual position I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government advocate for respondents.

5. There is no dispute that petitioner purchased the lands under acquisition in Survey No. 332/1 by way of registered sale deed dated 31-12-1986 from M/s. Subramaniam, Paramasivam and Kannan. According to Mr. V. Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the registration has been completed on 16-4-1987 and from that date onwards the petitioner is the owner of the lands in Survey No. 332/1, Pernampet village, Gudiatham Taluk. He also would contend that in view of Sections 60 and 66 of the Registration Act, from the date of registration in all purposes petitioner became the owner of the said land.

6. 4(1) notification was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette in respect of the lands in Survey No. 332/1 on 23-2-1990 wherein the name of the vendors alone were mentioned. Likewise, all subsequent notices were issued only to his vendors and petitioner was not given any notice till passing of an award under Section 12(2) of the Act. There is no dispute that in all land acquisition matters the name of the owner of the land has to be mentioned and individual notice has to be served on the person concerned. Even though respondents did not file any counter-affidavit, on the basis of the records, learned Government advocate strenuously contended that, based on the entries in the revenue records notices had been served on the vendors of the petitioner. Before considering the conduct of the erstwhile owners in not contesting the acquisition proceedings and receiving compensation in the year 1991 after disposing of the same by way of proper sale deed dated 31-12-1986, I shall refer the legal position on this aspect.

.7. In Bhama Raamamoorthy v. State of Tamilnadu, 1977 (1) Mad L J 323 : 1977 AIR (Mad) 272), Mohan, J. (as his Lordship then was) in a similar circumstance has concluded. :

."Certainly it was the duty of the Officer in charge to verify the registry and incorporate the name of the petitioner under Section 4(1) notification. . . . . . . . What prevented the Government from ascertaining the correct state of affairs with reference to the change of the name in the revenue registry is not at all made clear in the counter-affidavit. It is clear