Entire proceedings vitiated.

These three writ petitions can be considered, and disposed of together since they relate to the same acquisition and declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the learned counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common.

.2. The above writ petitions have been filed seeking for quashing the declaration issued under Sec.6 of the Act and in G.O.Ms.No.2171, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 20.11.1989 in so far as the lands of the respective writ petitioners are concerned. The petitioners in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 claimed to be the sons of late Ramasamy Moopanar, S/o.Muthusamy Moopanar, the original owner of Survey No.138/12B. The petitioner in W.P.No.15225 of 1990 claims to be the owner of the property in Survey No.l38/13B. W.P.No.15226 of 1990 has been filed by a person claiming to be the owner of Survey No.138/10 and he claims title under a Will said to have been executed on 7. 1963 by his aunt by name Poonjolai Ammal, stated to be the original owner of the said item of land.

3. Notice of motion has been ordered by this Court in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 on 9. 1990 and the other two writ petitions on 19. 1990 and at that time, interim stay of dispossession alone was granted with liberty to proceed with further proceedings. Notices have been served and the respondents have entered appearance. A counter-affidavit has also been filed for the respondents.

4. Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases contended in common for all the writ petitions, that (a) No personal service of notices for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act has been served on the petitioners; (b) that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act came to be made beyond a period of one year from the date of notification under Sec.4 of the Act in contravention of the Proviso to Sec.6 of the Act; and (c) There was no simultaneous publication of the substance of the notification and that this infirmity vitiates the acquisition proceedings.

.5. While meeting the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondents points out from the averments contained in the counter filed that the acquisition in question relating to dry lands measuring about 0.99.0 hectares in S.F.Nos.138/10, 138/12B, 138/13B and 138/14B of Nattarmanga-lam Village, Perambalur Taluk, Trichy District was for the purpose of providing house sites to 40 houseless Adi-Dravidar families, that the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.334 (ADTW), dated 11. 1988 and published on 111. 1988 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette that the same was published in the Tamil daily newspapers on 111. 1988, that the substance of the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was published at the convenient places in the locality on 12. 1988 as required under the Act and that the substance of the notification was also published in Form 3 under the Act at the Collector’s Office, Trichy Taluk Office, Perambalur Sub Registrar’s Office, Chettikulam and Police Station at Padalur on 20.12.1988 and that individual notices for enquiry under Sec.5-Aof the Act in the prescribed Form. 3-A were served on the land owners and interested persons in the lands on 21. 1989. While elaborating the above submission regarding the personal service of notice, it is pointed out for the respondents that so far as the owner in respect of Survey No.l38/12B is concerned, the pattadar was said to have died long before and that one Ramasamy, S/o.Arunachala Moopanar claiming to be the son-in-law of the deceased represented that the lands were given to him by oral agreement and mutual understanding and that he has been served with notice in respect of the said survey number treating to him to be the owner and enjoyer. In respect of the land which is the subject matter of W.P.No.15225 of 1990 it is claimed that Ramasamy, S/o. Arunachala Moopanar who claimed to be also the son-in-law of the owner of the land which is the subject matter of W.P.No.14595 of