Processing vitiated due furnishing wrong information in the notifications.

The three petitioners are brothers and are the sons of one Ayyappan Pillai. This family owned an extent of 2 acres 25 cents in old S. No. 3829 in Neendakara Village, Kanyakumari District. The family effected a partition of their properties by a registered document, dated 23rd February, 1968. Under that partition, each of the three petitioners got 75 cents in old S. No. 3829. But the registry continued to stand in the name of the father, Ayyappan Pillai. To provide house sites for Harijans, proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the petitioners’ property was notified under section 4(1) of the Act. The notification was published on 26th November, 1968. In that notification the name of Ayyappan Pillai was shown as the person interested in the land. Notice of enquiry under section 5-A was sent to Ayyappan Pillai, who appeared before the Acquisition Officer and gave a statement disclaiming interest and further stating that under the partition in his family, the land had been allotted to his three sons in equal shares. He also raised objections to the acquisition. His objections were overruled. But notices were not issued to the petitioners. Then followed the declaration under section 6 as per the order of the Government, dated 14th August, 1969. Notice under sections 9 (3) and 10 was issued to the petitioners’ father calling upon him to state his interest in the land and asking him to put in a statement regarding the amount of compensation. The petitioners at this stage came forward with this writ petition questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings. They pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they being the owners of the land, had no notice. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the description of the property given in the notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 was not correct but defective and that on that account, the proceedings are vitiated. The further contention urged on their behalf is that failure to issue notice to them has resulted in denial of opportunity to them to put forward their objections and that on this account also the proceedings are vitiated.

2. It is contended on behalf of the respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Acquisition Officer, that the petitioners’ father had notice of the acquisition proceedings, that the petitioners knew about the acquisition proceedings and that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. In the notification under section 4(1) the extent is given as 1.35 acres approximately. It is stated that it is a part of old S. N. 3829. The re-survey number is given as R.S. No. 16 /4-B. The petitioners’ Counsel contended that they did not even know when this re-survey was made. The Assistant Government Pleader produced records to show that an extent of 1.35 acres proposed to be acquired was sub-divided as R.S. No. 16/4-B. This sub-division does not appear to have been made after notice to the petitioner and their father. In the declaration under section 6 the extent 1.35 acres is said to be comprised in R.S. No. 16/4-B. Four boundaries are given for this extent. As per the plan which the Government Pleader showed to me R.S. No.16/4-B should have boundaries on the west and north, portions of old Survey No. 3829. But those portions are not given as the boundaries for R. S. No. 16/4-B. Northern boundary is stated to be R.S. No. 15, eastern boundary is said to be R.S. No. 27, southern boundary is said to be R.S. No. 25 and the western boundary is said to be R.S. No. 77. In the plan shown to me by the Government Pleader these survey numbers were not indicated. The description is no doubt defective. But on that account, the proceeding is not liable to be quashed. Section 4 of the Act requires that the notification shall i