The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notification and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are invalid if issued in the name of a deceased person and the authorities fail to rectify the mistake despite being informed of the death. Subsequent purchasers are not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

The challenge in this writ petition is the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 06.09.1996 and 6 declaration dated 011. 1997 in respect of lands of the petitioner in Survey No.366 to an extent of 3.03.0 hectares and in S.No.367 to an extent of 0.95.0 hectares in No.12, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk.

2. According to the petitioner, the above said property is the ancestral property of her deceased father Karamadai Naicker and after his death, the petitioner and her sister entered a partition deed on 28.09.1992, according to which the petitioner is in possession of the above said lands, which are the subject matter of acquisition.

2(a). The further case of the petitioner is that she has developed the property into house sites by spending more than Rs.2 lakhs and prepared a lay-out and gifted the same to the Kalapatti Panchayat Union by gift deed dated 112. 1996 for public purposes.

2(b). The second respondent has also issued a certificate dated 25.01.1995 to the effect that the lands in S.No.366, 378 and 381 were not the subject matter of any land acquisition proceedings. The Revenue Tahsildar has also issued a certificate on 12.06.1996, stating that S.No.367 was not subject to any acquisition. However, by letter dated 012. 1997, received from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Madras, the petitioner came to know that the above lands were acquired and hence, the approval for the lay-out was refused.

2(c). The petitioner understands that the property has been acquired for the public purpose of providing house sites under Neighbourhood Scheme and declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued on 011. 1997 and the petitioner was not given an opportunity at any point of time to participate in the enquiry. According to the petitioner, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") was issued in the name of her father Karamadai Naicker, who was not alive on the date of notification.

2(d). It is the further case of the petitioner that the substance of 4(1) notification was not published in the village in proper manner. There was no notice for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, served on the petitioner. After the partition between the petitioner and her sister dated 111. 1992 under the registered document in Document No.6715/92, the petitioner has executed a gift deed in favour of public authorities regarding the place set apart for public purpose as per the lay out.

2(e). Section 4(1) notification and 6 declaration were questioned on various grounds, including that it is a mala fide exercise of powers vested with the respondents, since only the petitioners lands have been chosen for acquisition; that 4(1) notification was published in the name of dead person; that 5-A enquiry was vitiated for the reason that the actual owner, viz., the petitioner was not served with the notice and no opportunity was given to her and therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice; that after coming to know about the notice dated 212. 1996, affixed near her lands, the petitioner submitted her objection on 15.01.1997 and the same has not been considered; that 4(1) notification was published in a Tamil daily "Pirpagal" which was not actually having wide circulation and therefore, the mandatory requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act are not complied with; that according to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.620 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.06.1990, it was informed that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board should avoid acquisition proposal in respect of lands where lay-out was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning and the layout was approved in respect of the petitioners lands as early as on 30.10.1995 and the petitioner has gifted the lands of an extent of 1.75 acres to the Panchayat Union for public purposes by gift deed dated 112. 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that the responde