The notification issued in the name of a deceased person and the failure to serve notice to all interested persons vitiated the acquisition proceedings.

The writ petitioners challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (in short, "the Act") in G.O.Ms.No.670, Housing and Urban Development Department (LA 2), dated 37. 1995 and also the declaration under section 6 of the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.422, Housing and Urban Development Department (LA 3-2) dated 29. 1996 in respect of their lands measuring 0.90.5 hectares in S.F.No.15/2 situate in 19, Vellakinar village, Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore District.

2. According to the petitioners, the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 37. 1995 on the basis that the properties were required for public purpose of formation of Thudiyalur Neighbourhood Scheme. It was published in the Government Gazette on 19. 1995. Thereafter, section 6 declaration was issued and published on 29. 1996. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the requisitioning body for the Scheme. The names of the petitioners were found registered in the land records. In 5A enquiry, the petitioners filed their objections. However, according to the petitioners, there was no enquiry conducted as per section 5A of the Act and the objections raised by the petitioners were not forwarded to the requisitioning authority and the reply from the requisitioning authority has not been communicated to the petitioners and considered. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the enquiry conducted without notice under section 5A of the Act is not valid in law.

2(a). It is the further case of the petitioners that 4(1) notification has been issued in the name of Arukutti Gounder, who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of other petitioners, while section 6 declaration has been issued in the names of the petitioners as Legal Representatives of the said Arukutti Gounder. It is also the case of the petitioners that 4(1) notification was issued on 19. 1995 while section 6 declaration was made on 29. 1996 and therefore, it is beyond the period of one year and on that score also, the land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside.

2(b). In short, it is the case of the petitioners, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the properties originally belonged to Arukutti Gounder, husband of the first petitioner and father of other petitioners who died on 17. 1988 and the fact of death was brought to the notice of revenue authorities when the mutation of records was made as early as on 12. 1994 and therefore, the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette dated 19. 1995 which is in the name of a dead person is void ab initio.

2(c). The next contention is that the notice for enquiry under section 5A of the Act was also issued in the name of Arukutti Gounder, but served only on one of his legal representatives, viz., Kuppusamy on 11. 1995, wherein he has made an endorsement to the effect that he received the notice as his father died. However, even thereafter, the respondents have not taken any steps to issue a modified notice under section 4(1) of the Act.

2(d). On the date of 5A enquiry, viz., 211. 1995, the Village Administrative Officer has given the details about the land owners in the chart containing entries relating to mutation of records and even thereafter, no attempt was made to serve notice on all the petitioners who are the interested persons. Therefore, 5A enquiry without due notice which is a mandatory requirement and the consequential declaration under section 6 of the Act are not valid in law.

2(e). The participation of the second petitioner in 5A enquiry will not validate the initial illegality of section 4(1) notification and therefore, any award passed will also become invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also rely upon various judgements viz.,

(i) Bhama Ramamoorthy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1977 Madras 272);

(ii) State of Madras vs. Deivasigamani Pillai (AIR 1976 Madras 245);

(iii) P.C.Thanikavelu vs. Spe