Mis-description of material particulars in the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act led to the denial of the petitioner's opportunity to make effective objection, resulting in the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on various grounds.

2. It is seen that an extent of 1.37.5 hectares of land in Survey No.459/2A of Kodangipatti village. Uthama-palayam Taluk was selected for acquisition for the provision of house-sites to 87 houseless Adi-dravidar families of Kodangipatty village. Accordingly, Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 24.2.1993; in Tamil dailies dated 25.2.1993, in the locality on 26.2.1993 and individual notice in Form 3A was served on the land owners on 30.3.1993 fixing Enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act on 27.4.1993.

3. According to the petitioner, even though she is the owner of the land in question, she was not given notice to submit her objection in the 5(A) Enquiry. It is further stated that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made and published in the Gazette on 10.12.1993. At the stage of taking steps to measure the land with a view to take possession, according to her, she came to know about the land acquisition proceedings and filed the above writ petition.

4. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the various averments in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, has raised the following contentions:-

(i) Though the petitioner is the owner of 7/8th share of property under acquisition, by Inheritance and has been In actual possession and enjoyment of the same, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned In Section 4 (1) Notification without proper description.

(ii) The petitioner was not served with Individual notice for enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Even -In the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, published In the Gazette, petitioner was not properly described.

(iii) In the absence of any errata In the Gazette, the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground that the same had been passed mechanically without application of mind.”

5. On the other hand, Mr. Selvanayagam, learned Government Advocate, by taking me through the various averments. In the counter affidavit as well as the records would contend that the notice was served on the mother of the petitioner and inspite of granting sufficient time, she failed to submit any objection. According to him, the name of the petitioner and her mother were shown correctly in the Notifications and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

7. There is no dispute that one Meera Hussain owned the land in question and after his death in the year 1981, the petitioner and her mother are entitled to 7/8th share and 1/8th share respectively as per Muslim Law. Now the question is whether the petitioner was properly described in the Notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Declaration- under Section 6 of the Act and whether she was given individual notice to submit her objection, if any and to participate in the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.

8. First, I shall consider the second point in the light of the specific assertion made by the petitioner in her affidavit. The perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), second respondent herein, does not show any details regarding service of notice on the petitioner for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. I have already stated that there is no dispute with regard to right, title of the petitioner as well as her mother. As a matter of fact, in para 8 of the counter affidavit of the second respondent, it is stated as follows:-

“..... As the Pattadar was no more and the writ petitioner and her mother Nain ammal were the legal heirs to the deceased Pattadar, the writ petitioner and her mother were adopted as the Intere