Judgment : These three writ petitions can be considered, and disposed of together since they relate to the same acquisition and declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the learned counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common. .2. The above writ petitions have been filed seeking for quashing the declaration issued under Sec.6 of the Act and in G.O.Ms.No.2171, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, dated 20.11.1989 in so far as the lands of the respective writ petitioners are concerned. The petitioners in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 claimed to be the sons of late Ramasamy Moopanar, S/o.Muthusamy Moopanar, the original owner of Survey No.138/12B. The petitioner in W.P.No.15225 of 1990 claims to be the owner of the property in Survey No.l38/13B. W.P.No.15226 of 1990 has been filed by a person claiming to be the owner of Survey No.138/10 and he claims title under a Will said to have been executed on 7. 1963 by his aunt by name Poonjolai Ammal, stated to be the original owner of the said item of land. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by this Court in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 on 9. 1990 and the other two writ petitions on 19. 1990 and at that time, interim stay of dispossession alone was granted with liberty to proceed with further proceedings. Notices have been served and the respondents have entered appearance. A counter-affidavit has also been filed for the respondents. 4. Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases contended in common for all the writ petitions, that (a) No personal service of notices for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act has been served on the petitioners; (b) that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act came to be made beyond a period of one year from the date of notification under Sec.4 of the Act in contravention of the Proviso to Sec.6 of the Act; and (c) There was no simultaneous publication of the substance of the notification and that this infirmity vitiates the acquisition proceedings. .5. .5. While meeting the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondents points out from the averments contained in the counter filed that the acquisition in question relating to dry lands measuring about 0.99.0 hectares in S.F.Nos.138/10, 138/12B, 138/13B and 138/14B of Nattarmanga-lam Village, Perambalur Taluk, Trichy District was for the purpose of providing house sites to 40 houseless Adi-Dravidar families, that the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.334 (ADTW), dated 11. 1988 and published on 111. 1988 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette that the same was published in the Tamil daily newspapers on 111. 1988, that the substance of the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was published at the convenient places in the locality on 12. 1988 as required under the Act and that the substance of the notification was also published in Form 3 under the Act at the Collector’s Office, Trichy Taluk Office, Perambalur Sub Registrar’s Office, Chettikulam and Police Station at Padalur on 20.12.1988 and that individual notices for enquiry under Sec.5-Aof the Act in the prescribed Form. 3-A were served on the land owners and interested persons in the lands on 21. 1989. While elaborating the above submission regarding the personal service of notice, it is pointed out for the respondents that so far as the owner in respect of Survey No.l38/12B is concerned, the pattadar was said to have died long before and that one Ramasamy, S/o.Arunachala Moopanar claiming to be the son-in-law of the deceased represented that the lands were given to him by oral agreement and mutual understanding and that he has been served with notice in respect of the said survey number treating to him to be the owner and enjoyer. In respect of the land which is the subject matter of W.P.No.15225 of 1990 it is claimed that Ramasamy, S/o. Arunachala Moopanar who claimed to be also the son-in-law of the owner of the land which is the subject matter of W.P.No.14595 of 1990 has been served with notice and that he did also appear for the enquiry by participating in it. So far as the owner of the land which is the subject matter of W.P.No. 15226 of 1990 is concerned, it is claimed that on the refusal of the petitioner to receive the notice the same was served by affixure and that the petitioner also participated in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and, therefore, no valid objection could be taken on behalf of the said writ petitioner making a grievance of absence of personal service. It is admitted that so far as the writ petitioners in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 is concerned, no notices have been served on them and that they have not also participated in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. 6. So far as the contention based on the alleged violation of the Proviso to Sec.6 of the Act is concerned, it is pointed out for the respondents that the declaration under Sec,6 of the Act came to be made in G.O.Ms.No.2171, ADTW, dated 20.11.1989 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 211. 1989 and having regard to the date of the last of the different kinds of publication of the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act referred to already the proviso to Sec.6 of the Act could not be said to have been violated and that the declaration was made well within the period of one year from the date of the last of such publication viz. 20.12.1988 (Vide: Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Jarayaman, 1992 Writ L.R. 332). .7. So far as the ground and grievance made on the absence of simultaneous publication, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself fairly stated on going through the materials and details frunished in the counter-affidvit that the publication has been effected within 25 days. The same could not be said to suffer any infirmity in law. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side. So far as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15225 and 15226 of 1990 are concerned, the plea of absence of personal notice cannot be countenanced in the light of the details furnished in the counter-affidavit which has been referred to supra. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.15225 of 1990 has been served and he has participated in the enquiry too. So far as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15225 and 15226 of 1990 are concerned, the plea of absence of personal notice cannot be countenanced in the light of the details furnished in the counter-affidavit which has been referred to supra. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.15225 of 1990 has been served and he has participated in the enquiry too. Though the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 15226 of 1990 has not been personally served, it was only due to the refusal of the petitioner to receive the notice and in the wake of such refusal it is claimed for the respondents that the notice has been served by affixture. The procedure adopted cannot be said to be bad in law particularly when the said person actually participated in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. So far as the said writ petitioners are concerned, the grievance projected on the ground of alleged absence of personal service of notice has to fail in the light of the facts stated and my conclusions referred to above. 9. So far as the ground relating to the absence of simultaneous publication is concerned, the details furnished in the counter-affidavit to which a reference has been already made would be lie the claim of the petitioners and the publication with in 25 days of the notification cannot be said to bean infirmity in law or that it cannot be legitimately said to be not a simultaneous publication. This ground of challenge also does not merit acceptance. Equally untenable is the ground of challenge based on the proviso to Sec.6 of the Act. Factually the details disclosed would show that the declaration has been made and issued under the Act within the stipulated period of one year from the date of the publication of the notification, having regard to the fact that as held by a Division Bench of this Court the period of one year has to be computed with reference to the date of the last of the category of various kinds of publications contemplated under Sec.4 of the Notification. .10. .10. So far as the absence of personal service of notice on the petitioners in W.P.No.14595 of 1990 is concerned, the only answer of the respondent is that the son-in-law of the erstwhile owner represented that the lands have been given to him on a mutual arrangement and that therefore notice was served on such persons, that he has participated in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and that therefore no objection could be taken to the enquiry conducted or the absence of personal notice to the petitioners. The stand taken by the respondents in this regard cannot be countenanced in law. Admittedly, the respondents were aware of the fact that the original owner of the lands comprised in S.F.N0.138/12B by name Ramasamy Moopanar, S/o.Muthusamy Moopanar died long before. In spite of the said factual position, it is surprising that even in the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act the name of the erstwhile owner whose death was known to the respondents is found published. On this ground alone, the impugned order in so far as it seriously relates to S.F.No.138/ 12B deserves to be quashed. That apart, it is beyond comprehension as to how the responsible authorities discharging statutory functions under the Act were very much indifferent in making due enquiries to ascertain about the heirs of the deceased owner and were so gullible to readily accept a claim by someone that the lands have been given to him by mutual and oral understanding. The person who made such a claim claimed to be the son-in-law of the erstwhile owner. Such contentions coming from responsible statutory functionaries cannot be either justified or sustained in a Court of Law. The authorities, in my view have miserably failed to verify properly about the heirs of the deceased pattadar and the fact that such heirs have not themselves come on record cannot be a valid plea in a case of the nature involving the death of the only owner of the land or justify the issue of a notification or a declaration in the name of a dead person. The procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be approved by a Court of Law. On account of the irregularities and lapses committed on the part of the respondents in properly verifying about the ownership or the legal heirship in respect of S.F.No.138/12B, the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced. The procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be approved by a Court of Law. On account of the irregularities and lapses committed on the part of the respondents in properly verifying about the ownership or the legal heirship in respect of S.F.No.138/12B, the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced. This vitiates the impugned land acquisition proceedings in so far as it relates to S.F.No.l38/12B. The grievance made on the absence of notice as well as the manner of issue of notification and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners in W.P.No. 14595 of 1990 deserves to be sustained. 11. For all the reasons stated above, W.P.No.14595 of 1990 shall stand allowed as prayed for in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners are concerned, they fail and shall stand dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.