The main legal point established is that the failure to issue notice to legal heirs vitiates the acquisition proceedings, and the period of limitation for land acquisition proceedings cannot be extended by the court.

1. An extent of 0.93.0 hectares in survey No.13/5, Mathagupatti Village, originally belonged to one ST.Srinivasa Chettiar, the father of the petitioner. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, was issued by the first respondent, proposing to acquire land for the purpose of providing house sites to the Most Backward Class people of Mathagupatti Village. Accordingly, the said notification was pased in Government Order G.O.3D No.148, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 01.12.1993. A notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25.02.1994. The petitioner gave his objection. Thereafter, a declaration was passed by the first respondent, which was followed by an award.

2. The petitioner's mother filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4333 of 1995 before this Honourable Court, challenging the declaration and the award passed. The Honourable High Court by holding that, inasmuch as the 3rd respondent has failed to issue notice to the legal heirs of the deceased ST.Srinivasa Chettiar, the declaration and the award cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the declaration passed under Section 6 was set aside, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's brother S.Chidambaram also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17166 of 1995, challenging G.O.3D No.117, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 30.12.1994. In W.P.No.17166 of 1995, this Honourable Court, taking note of the order passed in W.P.No.4333 of 1995 dated 31.07.2001, has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner's brother, in an order dated 11.07.2002, by quashing the declaration passed under Section 6, with liberty to the respondent to proceed further from the stage of 4(1) Notification after giving an opportunity to the petitioner therein to participate in 5-A enquiry. The learned Judge of this Honourable Court has directed that, the above said exercise shall be commenced by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.17166 of 1995 dated 11.07.2002.

3. It is seen from the records that, the order passed by this Honourable Court dated 11.07.2002 in W.P.No.17166 of 1995 was communicated to the respondent on 22.08.2002. However, the 3rd respondent, in a proceedings dated 02.01.2003, has issued in Form No.3-A, requiring the petitioner to give his objection for the proposed acquisition. Challenging the said notice on the ground that, the proceedings initiated have already lapsed in as much as the limitation of one year from the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the declaration passed under Section 6 is already over, the petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition.

4. Mr.ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the Honourable Apex Court in Padmasundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. vs. State of T.N. & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) CTC 55, has considered the very same issue and held that, once declaration passed under Section 6 is quashed, the Court shall not extend the period of limitation. Further, it is submitted that, what can be excluded for the purpose of limitation is only the period of stay or injunction granted by the competent Court. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that, in any case, even as per the direction given by the learned single Judge of this Court, the period of one month is over long before the initiation of further proceedings by the third respondent. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that, the writ petition will have to be allowed.

5. No counter has been filed by the respondents. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader based upon the records submitted that, the proceedings have been continued, considering the fact that the liberty has been given to the respondents to proceed from the stage of the notification issued