AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prabha Sridevan, J.—All these three writ appeals have been preferred against the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by a learned single Judge
of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5470 and 5471 of 1998, which had come to be filed challenging the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings
and the notification issued therefore u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (''Act'' in short). The
State has filed Writ Appeal Nos. 161 and 162 of 2006 insofar as that order was in favour of the writ petitioners and Writ Petition No. 369 of
2006 has been filed by the land owner against that portion of the order whereby the learned single Judge did not extend the benefit of his order to
the land standing in the name of Sellathaiammal.
In Writ Petition No. 5470 of 1998, the petitioner was V. Amsam, who claimed to be the owner of the land in Survey No. 479/1; to an extent of
5.30.0 hectares; Survey No. 80/1, to an extent of 0.87.5 hectares and Survey No. 480/2, to an extent of 0.35.0 hectares in Pandavarmangalam
Village. She is the owner of the land in Survey No. 478 in the very same village and the adjoining land belongs to her husband, in which an industry
called Bharath Chemical Industries has been set up. A residential quarters for the employees of this industry has been constructed in Survey No.
479/1. There is a tamarind those in the land and the other lands have been used for agricultural, horticultural and dairy purposes. A notice u/s 4(2)
of the Act read with Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 (''Rules'' in short) dated
15.12.1996 was served on the petitioner on 1.1.1997 in respect of the lands under Survey Nos. 479/1, 479/2, 481, 482/1 and 482/2. It indicated
that the enquiry would be held on 10.1.1997. The petitioner filed an application dated 4.1.1997 requesting sufficient time to file her objections and
prayed for time till 1.2.1997. A detailed objection dated 18.1.1997 was sent by the petitioner, which was received by the respondents on
20.1.1997. Since no enquiry was conducted on 10.1.1997, the petitioner was awaiting further communication. An additional objection was filed
indicating that the Panchayat Union had granted approval for the purpose of putting up construction and the factory had been registered as a small
scale industry. It was further indicated that the land in Survey No. 479/2 did not belong to her and that Survey No. 481 belonged to her son. On
22.7.1997, she received a communication that the notification u/s 4(1) had been published on 31.3.1997 and the petitioner was asked to appear
for an enquiry on 22.8.1997. She once again submitted her objections on 16.8.1997 stating that about 100 acres of poromboke lands were
available very near to the existing place where the Adi Dravidars were residing, but no further communication was served. According to her, the
notice in Form-I under Rule 3(i) of the Rules requires 15 days'' time for filing of objections after service of notice and oral enquiry is required to be
conducted only after an opportunity of filing of objections is given. But since the notice was served on the petitioner on 1.1.1997 indicating that
10.1.1997 was the date of enquiry, the condition relating to 15 days'' time was not complied with. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the notice
was not in accordance with the rules. It is also her grievance that though she had filed by her objections on 18.1.1997, which was received by the
authorities on 20.1.1997, there was no communication thereafter. According to her, the Special Tahsildar is supposed to hold the enquiry and
submit the report to the District Collector. However, copy of such report was never served on the petitioner. It is also her case that though notice
in respect of Survey Nos. 479/1 and 479/2 refers to the petitioner, she is not the owner of the land in Survey No. 479/1 and that land belonged to
her mother-in-law, Sellathaiammal, who died in 1984.
In Writ Petition No. 5471 of 1998, the contention of the petitioner is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner and therefore, the entire
land acquisition proceedings must be quashed. He had also produced the certificate issued by the Post Master that Thiru. V. Parthiban, S/o.
Vidyasekara Pandian, had not refused to receive any letter addressed to him from 1.12.1996 to 12.9.1998. In this writ petition, a counter affidavit
was filed stating that as per the revenue records, V. Amsam (petitioner in W.P. No. 5470 of 1998) was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos.
479/1 and 2 and the V. Parthiban (petitioner in W.P. No. 5471 of 1998) was the owner in respect of the land in S. No. 481 and that
Sellathaiammal was the owner of the land in respect of S. Nos. 481/1 and 482/2.
According to the State, the notice in Form-I u/s 4(2) of the Act was issued to the above persons and they were informed to appear for an
enquiry on 10.1.1997. The notice was sent by registered post. While Parthiban refused to receive the notice, Amsam was served with the notice
and Sellathaiammal was reported to have died. Amsam had sent an objection petition, which was received by the office on 8.1.1997. Neither the
objectors nor any interested person appeared for the enquiry on 10.1.1997. The objections filed by the petitioners were received on 20.1.1997
and the objections were rejected. It was indicated that Survey No. 479/2 was sold to one Kasinathan on 3.1.1997, but the notice had been
served on 1.1.1997. The notice in Form-I was sent to him on 13.1.1997. It was returned without being served and no objection was filed by
Kasinathan. One Ganesan had stated that the land in Survey Nos. 481/1 and 482/2 belonged to a charity to be maintained by Sellathaiammal, but
no documentary evidence was produced at the time of the enquiry. The enquiry showed that the lands were under the enjoyment of Vidyasekara
Pandian, the husband of Amsam. His name was also included in the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the report was submitted
by the Special Tahsildar and the District Collector approved of the proposal for acquisition of the lands on 18.3.1997. The gazette publication u/s
4(1) of the Act was effected on 31.3.1997. The award was passed on 10.3.1998. Possession of the lands was taken on 26.3.1998 and pattas
had also been distributed. It was on the basis of this that the learned single Judge passed the order which is challenged herein.
As far as W.P. No. 5470 of 1998 is concerned, it was found by the learned single Judge that the counter affidavit indicated that the objections
were overruled because the objections were routine in nature. It was found that under the notice, the 15 days'' time for filing the objections was not
given and therefore, the notice was defective in nature and though the objections were filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice
and the notice itself was defective and inconsistent, the petitioner cannot be found fault with merely because she had not followed the time
stipulated under the Act. As far as the land standing in the name of the dead person was concerned, the learned single Judge rejected the challenge
on the ground that the petitioner had not indicated how she had inherited the property and therefore, the notification was quashed insofar as the
land that was admittedly standing in the name of Amsam.
Insofar as W.P. No. 5471 of 1998 is concerned, the learned single Judge did not accept the case of the Government that the notice was refused
to be received by the petitioner.
Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the first objection to the challenge
ought to be rejected at the threshold on the ground that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no writ petition should be entertained after the
award has been passed and therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable. Even on merits, he submitted that this was a case where the rules
were complied with fully and there was no violation of the rules. It would be apparent from the records that Parthiban had deliberately refused to
receive the notice and in the case of Amsam, her objections were considered, though the objections were received beyond the 15 days'' time and
that would be borne our by records.
Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that as far as Parthiban was concerned, it was proved
that he had not refused to receive any letter and therefore, no notice was served on him. As far as Amsam was concerned, she had sent a letter on
4.1.1997 seeking time, because her husband was away and she needed him for preparing the objections and when she sent the objections later on,
they were considered, though it was beyond the time given in the notice u/s 4(2) of the Act. There was no request in her letter for personal hearing
and the law also does not require that there should be a personal hearing and it is only after considering her objections that the notification u/s 4(1)
of the Act was issued. As regards Sellathaiammal also, it is well settled that there can be no acquisition proceedings against a dead person.
Therefore, it was submitted by the learned senior counsel that the State''s appeal should be dismissed and the appeals preferred by the land
owners should be allowed.
The following decisions were relied on. In AIR 1989 Mad 222 (FB) [P.C. Thanikavelu v. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., Madras], where this Court
held that though the Revenue has a duty to keep their records up-to-date, there can be cases where the revenue records were not up-to-date and
the person who is really interested in the land may not receive the notice of enquiry and in those cases, if it is brought to the notice of the District
Collector that the interested person wants to object, the District Collector, as a statutory functionary, cannot decline to afford an opportunity to the
person. Though the lands are acquired under the theory of eminent domain, the rule of law must govern and control the executive functions. In
2001 (3) C.T.C. 649 [G. Ramakrishna Naidu v. District Collector], a learned single Judge of this Court deprecated the practice of casually and
informally overruling objections. In 2006 (4) C.T.C. 609 [R. Pari v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai], a Full Bench of
this Court answered the reference as to whether it was necessary for the District Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of
his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar; was the owner entitled to a copy of the Special Tahsildar''s report ; and should the Collector
record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the land owner as follows:
The owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorised officer. Thereafter, he should be given two weeks''
time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. It is not necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal
hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings
and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District
Collector is expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not Contain the reasons, the decision of
the Collector is not ipso facto vitiated and it would always open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court, if such action of the
Collector is challenged, that there has been application of mind and the reasons are available in the relevant records relating to such acquisition.
The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate
decision on the basis of the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer.
In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others, , the Supreme Court held that the enquiry u/s 5-A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and hearing of objections must be an effective one and not mere formality, and there must be proper application of
mind regarding the relevant factors in rejecting the irrelevant factors and also that the Act is an expropriatory piece of legislation and therefore, the
provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. In Competent Authority Vs. Barangore
Jute Factory and Others, , the Supreme Court held that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to
be done in that manner alone and quashed the notification impugned therein on the ground that it was vague and not in accordance with law. In
Savithiriammal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, , a Division Bench of this Court held that when a notification is issued in the name of a dead person,
the proceedings cannot be sustained. In 2006 (4) C.T.C. 785 [Sharp Tools v. The State of Tamil Nadu], a Full Bench of our Court held as
follows:
(I) Objections to the acquisition are to be submitted by the persons interested in the lands within 30 days from the date of publication of the
Notification as provided by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Act.
(II) The 30 days'' period is to be reckoned from the last mode of publication as contemplated u/s 4(1) of the Act.
(III) In all cases where objections are filed within 30 days as provided u/s 5A(1); hearing the objectors and Department/Company and further
enquiry are mandatory.
(IV) The Collector shall have to fix, the date of hearing the objections. He has to give notice in Form-B to the Objector as well as to the
Department. The ''Department or Company may file a statement by way of answer to the objections before the date fixed by the Collector. The
Department may also depute their Representative to attend the enquiry.
(V) If objections are not filed within the time, but the person interested/land owner appears before the Collector pursuant to the Notice in Form-B
and makes any objections orally, it is incumbent on the part of the Collector to hear the objector, however, conducting further enquiry is not
obligatory but it is only a discretion of the Collector. To put it clear, ''personal hearing'' is mandatory and ""further enquiry'' is discretionary
depending upon the submission of objections within 30 days of the last mode of the publication.
(VI) Rule 4(b) is mandatory and to be followed essentially. In terms of Rule 4{b), Form-B is only a Notice to the objectors and the Department to
appear for the hearing and it is not a notice for filing the objections.
In S. Harshavardhan and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , a Division Bench of this Court, following Tej Kaur and Others, etc.
Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, , held that after the
award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings initiated thereunder. In 2000 W L.R.
477 [Executive Engineer and Administrative officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit v. Girija Janarthan and Ors.], a writ petition was filed questioning
the acquisition proceedings after the award was passed. It was argued that since the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act did not contain the name of the
original owners, the very initiation of acquisition proceedings is vitiated and merely because the award was passed, the right to challenge the
proceedings cannot be taken away. The Division Bench referred to Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, ,
where again the Supreme Court had held that a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after possession is taken, is
not maintainable. In that case, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was dated 5.3.1991, the award was passed on 23.4.1994 and the writ petition
was filed on 30.11.1994. The Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by the State. In Tej Kaur''s case (supra), the acquisition was under the
Central Act. The grounds raised therein were almost similar to the ones raised here, viz. that there was no enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act and that the
appellants were not given personal hearing. In that case, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued on 7.5.1991. The objections were filed by
the land owners on 13.6.1991. The declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made on 18.3.1992. The award was passed on 15.3.1994 and the writ
petition was filed on 12.4.1994. The Supreme Court held as follows:
It is true that Section 5-A inquiry is an important stage in the acquisition proceedings and a person who is aware of Section 4(1) notification can
raise objection to the effect that his property is not required for acquisition and he is also at liberty to raise the contention that the property is not
required for any public purpose. It is also true, that the objector must also be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and any violation of
the procedure prescribed u/s 5-A would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner of the property whose land is sought to be acquired. In the
instant case, however, it is pertinent to note that the Collector had, in fact, conducted the Section 5-A inquiry, though there is no material on record
to show that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 were heard in person. The facts and circumstances of Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998
clearly show that the objection raised by the appellants was considered and partly allowed by the Collector. About eight acres of land was sought
to be acquired from the appellants as per the notification, but out of that, an extent of six acres was excluded from acquisition and only one-and-a-
half acres of land was actually acquired by the authorities. This would clearly show that the objection filed by the appellants was considered by the
Collector. Moreover, Section 6 declaration was made on 18-3-1992 and the award was passed on 15-3-1994. The appellants filed the writ
petition only on 12-4-1994. In spite of the Section 6 declaration having been made on 18-3-1992, the appellants allowed the acquisition
proceedings to go on until the award was passed. This fact clearly indicates that the appellants did not have a genuine grievance against Section 5-
A inquiry held by the Collector. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment on the grounds now advanced by the appellants.
Therefore, even on the preliminary ground that the award had come to be passed before the filing of the writ petitions and since the consistent view
of the Supreme Court appears to be that after the award is passed, there can be no challenge to the acquisition proceedings, we will have to allow
the appeals filed by the State and dismiss the one filed by the land owner. But we will also examine the facts and go through the records.
The notice in Form-I issued under Rule 3(i) of the Rules to Amsam shows that the land owner has to file the objections within 15 days from the
date of issuance of the notice. There is a slight variance in the meaning of the notice as found in the Tamil version and as found in the English
version. In the Tamil version, the words used are (sic), ""the date of issue of notice"", whereas in the English version, the words are ""after service of
this notice"". This notice calls upon the land owner to be present at 11 a.m. on 10.1.1997. This was signed on 11.12.1996 and sent by post on
31.12.1996.
In the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, it is stated that Form-III notice was sent on 11.12.1996 by registered post; Amsam had received it
on 1.1.1997, but Parthiban had refused to receive it, ""...(sic); and that Tmt. Sellathaiammal had died and so, the notice could not be served on her.
It is stated that on 10.1.1997, the enquiry that was to have held did not take place, since no objections were received by then. On 8.1.1997, the
letter was received from Amsam that since her husband had gone out of town, she wanted time till 1.2.1997 for giving her objections. On
20.1.1997, they received her objections, which stated that there are four residential buildings in Survey No. 479/1 and that she is getting an annual
income of Rs. 5,000/- from the tamarind trees and the rest of the land is used as a grazing field for her dairy farm and that there are borewells in
two places and that she intends to plant herbal trees and that the properties in Survey Nos. 477/1, 480/2 and 488, which belonged to her husband,
are fruit orchards which need water and that if the lands in Survey No. 479/1 are acquired, then her poultry will suffer and that she had acquired
these lands, which were thorny bushes earlier, by spending Rs. 40,000/- and that she had sold the property in Survey No. 479/2 to Irulandi''s son
Kasinathan and that this land is five kilometers from Pandavarmanagalam Village and that there are many lands near the village and therefore, those
lands should be acquired.
On the basis of these objections, the officer had again gone to the land in question. It is recorded that the buildings mentioned in Survey No.
479/1 did not come within the extent which is sought to be acquired and that for the trees and the acquired land, compensation can be given
separately. As regards the use of the lands as grazing field, the officer found that this is false and that the land is a stony ground and that it would
have been several years since there had been any agriculture in this land. It is also stated that the objection that the borewells are required for the
fruit orchards and that the poultry will be affected are all grounds which cannot be accepted in a land acquisition proceedings and it is merely to
stall the proceedings. As regards Survey No. 479/2, it was found that after the proceedings commenced on 23.1.1997, a sale deed has been
registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti in favour of one Kasinathan. Therefore, this Kasinthan was also given a notice on
13.2.1997, which was returned ''Unserved''. Thus, the Tahsildar recommends that for that land, Kasinathan can be given the compensation. As
regards the property standing in the name of Sellathaiammal, one Ganesan had given an application that there was a Will executed by
Sellathaiammal by which the property was given to a Trust, to be administered by her grandsons, who were then minors, until they attain majority
and those grandsons are still minors. But the documents were not produced before them. The lands were still in the management of Vidyasekara
Pandian, the husband of Amsam. The officer records that no objection was received from Parthiban. Thereafter, the notice sent u/s 4(2) of the Act
was received by all the parties.
The learned senior counsel mainly stressed the fact that since the formalities and the procedure required by law had not been complied with,
the entire acquisition proceedings would be a nullity and the fact that an award had been passed will not cure the defect and therefore, even if the
writ petition had been filed subsequent to the award, the writ petition shall not be dismissed on the preliminary ground that after an award, there
can be no challenge to the acquisition proceedings. However, we have already referred to Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others, where again the facts showed that there was no evidence that the land owner was heard in person or that the Collector had
in fact conducted the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Central Act. But however, the Supreme Court, in that case, noted that out of the entire eight acres of
land, six acres were excluded from acquisition and only 11/2 acres had been acquired by the authorities. Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the
opinion that the objection filed by the land owners had been considered by the Collector and when the writ petition was filed on 12.4.1994, one
month after the award, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed and was allowed to stand. But we have also satisfied ourselves as to the
facts and what is seen in the records in order to see if the notice was served and whether the objections were heard and whether the objections
were considered. Even the Full Bench in K. Pari''s case had said that mere non-furnishing of report would not ipso facto result in the proceedings
being vitiated and again the non-existence of reasons in the communication to the land owner will also not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and it
would be the question of prejudice to the land owner which has to be considered and if the relevant records show application of mind and reasons
are available therein, the authorities may prove the same before the Court.
In the present case, V. Amsam, the petitioner in W.P. No. 5470 of 1998, was served with the notice on 1.1.1997. According to the rules, she
ought to have been given 15 clear days'' time to reply. Though the notice u/s 4(2) of the Act is dated 15.12.1996, it appears to have been posted
later, which is the result why she received it only on 1.1.1997. The enquiry was slated on 10.1.1997, but it was not conducted on 10.1.1997,
since Amsam had asked for time to file her objections. The objections were received by the respondents on 20.1.1997. We have gone through the
objections and we find that there is no request in the objections for granting her personal hearing. We also find in the records that the officer had
gone to the lands himself, had examined the lands sought to be acquired in the context of each of the objections raised by her and had given
reasons for rejecting them. Though in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the objections are routine in nature, that is not how the authority has dealt
with the objections. We have already referred to the relevant records which shows that her objections regarding fruit orchards and the objections
regarding her poultry suffering are all without merit. Therefore, the authority has considered each of her objections and has only thereafter rejected
it and has proceed to pass the award on 10.3.1998. The writ petitions were filed only on 29.3.1998, though Amsam and Parthiban knew about
the proceedings at least by the early half of 1997. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the challenge made by Amsam
with regard to the acquisition proceedings not merely on the ground that the writ petition had been filed after the award was passed, but also for
the following reasons. The enquiry was not held on 10.1.1997, the authorities had deferred it until they received the objections. Amsam did not ask
for personal hearing. The officer had gone to the lands in question not once but twice to see if the objections were sustainable. The authority has
satisfied the statutory requirements by applying his mind to each of the objections and dealing with the same accordingly.
As regards V. Parthiban, petitioner in W.P. No. 5471 of 1998, his case is that he did not refuse to receive the notice. It is relevant to note that
Parthiban is the son of Amsam. Parthiban and Amsam live at the same address. The first letter written by Amsam seeking time is to the effect that
since her husband is out of town, she needs his help to give a suitable reply to the notice. The entire family lived together. It is true that the returned
cover is not found in the file. But, there are contemporaneous records in the form of the report of the Special Tahsildar which shows that Parthiban
had refused to receive the cover, (sic) are the words used. The petitioner, of course, relies on a certificate issued by the postal authorities that no
cover was refused to be received by Parthian during the relevant period. In the first place, whoever signed that certificate had not supported it by
giving evidence or giving a supporting affidavit. Secondly, while postal authorities can testify to the fact that a particular letter has been served on a
particular address, as far as return of a cover is concerned, it may be for different reasons like ''no such addressee'' or ''addressee left'' or
''addressee refused to receive''. We are not sure to what extent we can rely on this certificate given long after to the effect that no letter was
refused to be received by Parthiban.
On the other hand, we are more inclined to accept the contemporaneous record in the files maintained by the respondents which we have no
reason to suspect as fabricated, and the contemporaneous records show that Parthiban had refused to receive the letter. It is to be noted that all
the three letters, one addressed to Amsam, the other addressed to Parthiban and another addressed to Sellathaiammal, have all been sent by
registered post to the same address, and there is no reason why the letter sent to Parthiban alone should not have been served on him. As regards
the letter sent to Sellathaiammal it had been returned for the correct reason, viz. Sellathaiammal had died. Therefore, we do not accept the case of
the petitioner Parthiban had that refused to receive the notice. On the other hand, we are inclined to accept veracity of the files and the stand of the
Government that Parthiban had refused to receive the notice. Therefore, the notice sent u/s 4(2) of the Act is deemed to have been served on
Parthiban and he had chosen not to give his objections. Instead, he had chosen to write a letter in May, 1997 as though he had not received the
notice u/s 4(2) of the Act and that he was given to understand that there are proceedings for acquisition. Even at this stage, he could have given his
objections, or he could have challenged the proceedings. He did not choose to do so and has come up with the writ petition after the award came
to be passed. In these circumstances, we are inclined to accept the stand of the Government that the procedure stipulated and all the formalities
prescribed have been complied with and therefore, there can be no valid challenge to the acquisition proceedings by Parthiban.
As regards Sellathaiammal, the notice u/s 4(2) was sent to a dead person. The notification u/s 4(1) is in the name of her son. Though the
authorities knew when the registered letter was returned that Sellathaiammal had died, there was time enough for them to rectify the mistake and
issue the notice u/s 4(2) to the legal heirs of Sellathaiammal. It is true that they had set up a will which, according to the State, they were not able to
prove. But, they knew that the husband of Amsam, viz. Vidyasekara Pandian, was the son of Sellathaiammal. Therefore, he is one of the heirs
under the Hindu Law. Care should have been taken so that the notice was issued on the legal heirs of the dead owner. In (2006) 3 M.L.J. 389
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that when a notification is issued in the name of a dead person, the proceedings cannot be
sustained. In this case alone, though the challenge is made after the award is passed, since the proceedings against a dead person is void ab initio,
we cannot sustain the acquisition proceedings merely on the ground that the award has been passed.
For all these reasons, Writ Appeal Nos. 161 and 162 of 2006 filed by the State are allowed and Writ Appeal No. 369 of 2006 filed by the
land owner is also allowed. It is open to the authorities concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law in respect of the lands that stood in the
name of Sellathaiammal, if they require those lands for the objects set down in the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
W.A.M.P. Nos. 779 of 2006 in W.A. No. 369 of 2006 and W.A.M.P. Nos. 64 and 65 of 2009 in W.A. Nos. 161 and 162 of 2006 are closed.