Non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding notification issuance and failure to provide proper notice to concerned owners at various stages of the proceedings vitiated the notifications and declaration.

1. The writ petitioners are aggrieved against the issuance of 4(1) notification made in G.O.Ms.No.650 Housing and Urban Development (L.A.III) dated 22.9.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.10.1992 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. In G.O.Ms.No.939, Housing and Urban Development, dated 15.11.1993 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 18.11.1993 in respect of the lands of the petitioners situated in S.No.223/2 and 222/2 Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore, North Taluk, Coimbatore District.

2. According to the petitioners, the lands in question in S.No.223/2 and 222/2 to an extent of 1.93.0 Hectares concerned in W.P.Nos.1201 to 1208 of 1997 filed by the heirs of Krishna Gounder and Kuttiammal and after her death on 31.1.2000. Succeeded by her legal representatives, out of the total extent of 10.24.0 Hectares sought to be acquired for the purpose of Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme, originally belonged to one Thiru Krishna Gounder who died on 24.9.1988, that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1202, 1205, 1206, 1207 and 1208 of 1997 were the legal representatives of the said Krishna Gounder, while the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1201, 1203 and 1204 are the purchasers of the lands in question from the original owners. It is stated that a recognised Private School providing education up to V Standard is being run in part of the said lands. It is claimed that during a preliminary survey conducted by the authorities, the factum of ownership of the petitioners and the running of the school was made known to the concerned Land Acquisition Officer who also recommended for deletion of these lands in view of the existence of the school and also the location of the property in a fringe area as such the exclusion would not affect the purpose of the acquisition.

3. The 4(1) Notification was dated 22.9.1992. It is not in dispute that the publication of it was made in the newspapers called "Makkal Kural" and "Pirpagal" dated 22.10.1992. It is also not in dispute that the 4(1) Notification was issued in the name of the original owner i.e. Krishna Gounder who died as early as on 24.9.1988. When the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act was held on 4.6.1993, it is stated that the present petition in W.P.No.1208 of 1997 filed objections for himself, as well as power of agent of the writ petitioners. The report under Section 5(A) was dated 25.5.1993. Thereafter Section 6 declaration came to be made on 15.11.1993 which was published in the locality on 23.11.1993. Ultimately, the award came to be passed on 10.11.1995.

4. The writ petitioners, apart from various challenges made in the affidavit filed in support of the respective writ petition, also raised certain additional grounds in W.M.P.Nos.22328 to 22332 of 2001.

5. In the above stated back ground, Sri.R. Krishna Moorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would contend that Section 4(1) Notification is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as, the Notification came to be issued in the name of a dead person, that the publication was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act that no publication in the locality was made and the non-service of notice on the petitioners and in the name of the petitioners inspite of knowledge of their ownership at the time of conduct of preliminary survey would also vitiate the proceedings. The learned senior counsel would then contend that even the 5(A) enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, inasmuch as, the various objections raised through the power agent of the writ petitioners namely, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1208 of 1997 were not duly forwarded to the re-quistioning body and the remarks of the requisitioning body were not furnished to the petitioner or to the power agent before the submission of the report under Section 5(A), dated 25.5.1993. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the said infirmity was in violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisi