Savithiriammal vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 07.02.2004, made in

W.P.18730 of 1996, in and by which, the learned Judge quashed the declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and permitted the

Government to proceed further by issuing another Declaration u/s 6 within the prescribed time limit. Not satisfied with the limited relief granted, the

Writ Petitioner has filed the above Appeal.

Heard Mr. A.S. Vijayaragavan, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant is the daughter of one Thiruvenkatasamy, who

owned lands in S. Nos. 267/5 and 268/3, Ganapathi Village, Coimbatore Taluk. According to him, the said lands and other surrounded lands

were sought to be acquired at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses under Ganapathi Neighbourhood scheme,

Phase-II. It is further pointed out that the petitioner''s father Thiruvenkatasamy died way back on 06.3.1987, however, Notification u/s 4(1), which

was published in the Government Gazette on 14.06.1995, was issued in the name of the said Thiruvenkatasamy-dead person. It is also brought to

our notice that the petitioner/appellant, on hearing the news that the authorities are taking steps to acquire her father''s lands, submitted her

objection, wherein, it is specifically stated that her father died long back leaving behind herself as the only legal heir. She also mentioned that the

notice/Notification issued on dead person is illegal, improper and void. She further stated that though this aspect was specifically pointed out during

the 5-A enquiry, even in the subsequent declaration, the respondents did not carry out necessary changes and issued the same only in the name of

dead person, ie., Thiruvenkatasaamy. In such circumstances, according to the counsel, the learned Judge, having accepted the case of the

petitioner, ought to have quashed the entire proceedings including Notification u/s 4(1).

We verified the 4(1) Notification, 5-A enquiry proceedings and Section 6 Declaration. As rightly pointed out, in the Notification and

Declaration, it is stated that Thiruvenkatasamy is the owner of the lands in S. Nos. 267/5 and 268/3. We have already referred to the written

objection filed by the petitioner, who is none else than the daughter of the said Thiruvenkatasamy, to the effect that her father died on 6.3.1987. In

such circumstances, it is but proper on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to rectify the mistake in all the proceedings including 4(1)

Notification. The Notification issued in the name of dead person is a nullity and the proceedings cannot be continued based on the said

Notification.

This Court, in Muthusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1993 1 M.L.J. 217; V. Devaraj, V. Sundararajan, V. Damodarasamy, Dr. V.

Ramachandran and V. Lakshminarayanasami Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, ; Miss. Asiya Mariyan Vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil

Nadu. Adi- Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Madras and another, ; and in series of other decisions, held that

Notice/Notification issued in the name of dead person and the proceedings with respect to the said lands cannot be sustained. By applying the said

principle, we accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and quash the Notification issued u/s 4(1), dated 14.06.1995.

Consequently, Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. It is made clear that the respondents are free to

proceed with the acquisition, if they so desire, by initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law.