It is not obligatory for acquiring authority to make a roving enquiry about ownership.

(This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 6.11.2003 in W.P.No.7153 of 1997.)

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The question as to whether a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of a dead person is a nullity, falls for consideration in this appeal.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

Five persons by name M.Narasimha Reddy, G.S.Gopalakrishnan, Tmt.Rajamma, M.Krishnappa and L. Nachiappan jointly filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7153 of 1997 praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to a notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.130, Electronics, Science and Technology (C) Department dated 2.11.1988 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act under G.O.Ms.No.941, Industries (SIF2) dated 18.12.1989 and the award No.4 of 1991 dated 19.12.1991 of the second respondent and to quash all those proceedings in so far as they related to the land of an extent of 39 cents in Survey No.671/1, Hosur Village and Taluk. It was their contention in the writ petition that the said land of the extent of 39 cents was developed into a layout of house sites along with other lands and the layout was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning in DTP approval 53/87-C No.2122/87 S.D.R.4 and that they had purchased plot Nos.28, 26, 27, 25, 30 and 31 respectively in the said layout.

3. By an order dated 6.11.2003, the writ petition was allowed in favour of the first and fifth petitioners viz., M.Narasimha Reddy and L.Nachiappan and the entire land acquisition proceedings as against the plots of land purchased by them were set at naught. However, the writ petition was dismissed in so far as the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 viz., G.S.Gopalakrishnan, Tmt.Rajamma and M.Krishnappa were concerned. Therefore, aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition have filed the above writ appeal.

4. Mr.A.S.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the entire acquisition proceedings were vitiated inasmuch as the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in the name of a dead person by name C.Kondappa Naidu and that therefore the original owners as well as the subsequent purchasers never had an opportunity to object to the proceedings.

5. Admittedly Section 4 (1) notification was issued under G.O.Ms.No.130, Electronics, Science and Technology (C) Department dated 2.11.1988 and the notification contained only the name of C.Kondappa Naidu as the person interested in the lands in question. But the said C.Kondappa Naidu had died on 21.9.1987, much earlier to the notification.

6. But the actual persons who became entitled to the lands in question by virtue of a compromise decree dated 20.4.1987 passed in a civil suit O.S.No.75 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, developed the land into a scheme of house sites and got the layout approved in the proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planning DTP No.53/1987. Admittedly, the appellants herein purchased the respective plots in the approved layout under sale deeds dated 26.10.1994, 28.9.1992 and 24.2.1993, by which time the Award itself had been passed on 19.12.1991. In other words, the appellants herein had purchased their respective plots much after the Award was passed on 19.12.1991 and possession taken on 13.8.1992.

7. On a consideration of the above facts, the learned Judge rejected the contention of the appellants and held that the mere fact that Section 4(1) notification was issued in the name of a dead person would not vitiate the entire proceedings inasmuch as the authorities responsible for issuing the notification might not be aware of the death of the owner. However, the learned Judge held that the failure to provide an opportunity to participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A vitiate