Judgment : Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for a public purpose, namely, for construction of house-sites under Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme, petitioners numbering 11 have filed the above writ petition. 2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition that the lands measuring an extent of 2.64 acres comprised in S.F.No.128/2 of Veerakeralam village, Coimbatore Taluk and District and other lands originally belonged to first petitioners father Dhodda Thamay Gowder and he executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 210. 1947 in respect of the said lands in favour of first petitioner and his brothers, late Muthu Gowder and late Eare Gowder. After, the death of the said two brothers, the first petitioner and other are continuing the performance as per the above Settlement deed. As it was no longer possible to continue the performance with the meagre income from the said lands, the petitioners and one V.M.Krishnamurthy filed O.P.No.77 of 1981 before the District Court, Coimbatore under Sec.34 of the Indian Trusts Act praying to accord permission to sell the Trust property viz., the lands in S.F.No.128/2 and the said court accorded permission to sell the said lands. As extent of 1.37 acres in S.F.No.128/2 was sold to various persons and another extent of 75 cents was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the formation of the Coimbatore Siruvani Road and the remaining extent of 52 cents was in their possession and enjoyment. The land acquired for the formation of the Coimbatore-Siruvani Road was sub-divided as S.F.No.l28/2B and the 52 cents in their possession was sub-divided as S.F.No.128/2C. Their father, the said Dhodda Thamay Gowder died in 1959 and the patta for the abovesaid lands still stands in his name. For fixing the compensation amount for the 75 cents of land in S.F.No.128/2B acquired for the formation of the Coimbatore-Siruvani Road, notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were served on the petitioners herein for the award enquiry and the award was also passed in favour of the petitioners and others. It is further stated that the petitioners herein laid the said 52 cents in S.F.128/2C into house-sites and under Registered Sale Deeds dated 5. 1994 and 15. 1995 sold to one Mrs.T.Jayaram and one Mrs.M.Vijaya an extent of 10 cents and 80 sq.ft. and 3 cents and 272 sq.ft. respectively. It is further stated that the petitioners herein laid the said 52 cents in S.F.128/2C into house-sites and under Registered Sale Deeds dated 5. 1994 and 15. 1995 sold to one Mrs.T.Jayaram and one Mrs.M.Vijaya an extent of 10 cents and 80 sq.ft. and 3 cents and 272 sq.ft. respectively. When the above said purchasers approached the Veerakeralam Town Panchayat for sanction of the building plan to put up building in the sites purchased by them, they were informed that since the lands in S.F.No.128/2C has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The plan could not be sanctioned and the purchasers informed the said facts to the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the petitioners made enquiries and came to know that the said land has been acquired and obtained the copy of the Sec.4(1) and Sec.6 declaration. No notice whatsoever was served on the petitioners at any stage of the proceedings and to the knowledge of the petitioners, no award seems to have passed so far and no notice for the award enquiry has been received. In such circumstances, having no other effective and alternative remedy, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition. 3. Though this Court ordered notice of motion even as early as on 8. 1995, the respondents have not chosen to file counter affidavit. However, the learned Government Advocate secured necessary records. 4. Mr.K.Mohan Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that even though the original owner of the land in question, namely, Dhodda Thamay Gowder died even in the year 1959 and after knowing the death of the real owner, the respondents proceeded with the acquisition proceedings only in the name of dead person; accordingly the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. We are concerned with lands in S.F.128/2C. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their father Dhodda Thamay Gowder died even in the year 1959. Even though 4(1) notification was issued and published in the Gazette dated 2. 1982 and 6 declaration on 3. 1984, in both the said notifications, they referred to the name of late Dhodda Thamay Gowder as the owner of the land in question. A perusal of 4(1) notification and 6 declaration clearly shows that they referred only the name of Dhodda Thamay Gowder. 1982 and 6 declaration on 3. 1984, in both the said notifications, they referred to the name of late Dhodda Thamay Gowder as the owner of the land in question. A perusal of 4(1) notification and 6 declaration clearly shows that they referred only the name of Dhodda Thamay Gowder. It is clear that the entire acquisition proceedings were initiated and proceeded with only in the name of a dead person. No doubt, the learned Government Advocate would contend that no steps from the petitioners’ side have been taken either to inform about the death of the said person or to make corrections in the Revenue Records such as patta etc. In this regard, Mr.Mohan Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners have very much relied on an unreported decision of Raju, J., (as he then was) in P.Mahalingam v. Special Tahsildar, (L.A.) Neighbourhood Scheme, Salem, Writ Petition No.202 of 1985, etc., batch dated 21. 1994. In the said batch of writ petitions, particularly in W.P.No.9584 of 1986, a contention was raised stating that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be struck down on the ground that notification under Sec.4(1) was issued in the name of a dead person, namely, Petha Gounder, who died 10 years back and 7 declaration came to be issued in the name of one Chinnathambi, who died seven years back. There also similar reply was made on behalf of the respondents stating that the writ petitioner had failed in his duty to bring the village accounts relating to the lands in question updated by effecting necessary changes in the register in respect of the name of the erstwhile holder even after the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act; consequently there is no merit in the plea made by the petitioner. Rejecting the said contention, the learned Judge has observed as follows: “…I am afraid, I can countenance such a plea of behalf of the respondents. In my view, such a contention does not appear to be a responsible one to be put forward by the authorities of the State Government. Rejecting the said contention, the learned Judge has observed as follows: “…I am afraid, I can countenance such a plea of behalf of the respondents. In my view, such a contention does not appear to be a responsible one to be put forward by the authorities of the State Government. It is one thing to say that the entry in the village accounts continued in the name of erstwhile holder notwithstanding a change in the ownerships and the default on the part of the successor in not bringing the records up-to-date disables such a person from pleading that he has not been given any notice but the same principle cannot be applied in the case of the notice issued in favour of a dead person. The village records are maintained by the local revenue officials, who are supposed to even verify, on the spot, during every fasli year about the actual cultivation to quantify the land revenue and collect the same from the person concerned. It is futile and too much for the authorities to plead ignorance about the actual successor in this case since they could not be permitted to contend that for such a long number of years no one was paying the land revenue to the land in question, and the authorities were really oblivious to the factum of change of ownership. In my view, the failure to kept the records relating to the village updated by the local village officers in a case of the nature, where at least the death of the person was involved, the respondents could not be allowed to take shelter under the plea that the petitioner before the court or the successor in interest has not taken steps to have the revenue records updated. Even that apart, any proceedings passed in the name of a dead person has to be held to be ab initio void and non-est in the eye of law. The declaration under Sec.6 is a vital one in the scheme of land acquisition proceedings and such proceedings allowed to be made in the name of a dead person therefore has to go. The declaration under Sec.6 is a vital one in the scheme of land acquisition proceedings and such proceedings allowed to be made in the name of a dead person therefore has to go. In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners in this writ petition is concerned, shall stand hereby quashed…” In the light of the fact that here also the authorities have proceeded in the name of a dead person by mentioning his name in the notification and addressing communication to him, the conclusion of the learned Judge is directly applicable to our case. 5. A perusal of the records produced by the learned Government Advocate would go to show that notice under Secs.4(1) and 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was sent to Dhodda Thamay Gowder in respect of the land in S.F.No.128/2C which we are concerned. The details furnished in the Schedule and the endorsement made by the concerned authority are relevant. “L.A.6/81-A Office of the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Housing Scheme No.III, Collectors Office Compound, Coimbatore-18. Dated 6. 1982. NOTICE UNDER Secs.4(1) and 5-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894 AS AMENDED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) ACT XXXVIII OF 1923. It is clear that even on the date of notice i.e., on 6. 1982, the respondents were aware of the death of the original owner. In such a circumstance, the respondents after enquiry with the concerned Village Administrative Officer as to the death of the said Dhodda Thamay Gowder, ought to have sent notices to the legal heirs of the said Dhodda Thamay Gowder. But they have not followed the said procedure. Admittedly, even in the subsequent declaration under Sec.6, the owner of the land is described as Dhodda Thamay Gowder. Learned Government Advocate by relying on notice under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act for award enquiry, would contend that the petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings and they ought to have participated in the earlier 5-A enquiry etc. After perusing the said notice from the File, I am unable to accept his contention since the said notice had been addressed to a dead person, namely, Dhodda Thamay Gowder. After perusing the said notice from the File, I am unable to accept his contention since the said notice had been addressed to a dead person, namely, Dhodda Thamay Gowder. It is clear that starting from 4 (1) notification and ending with award enquiry, all the proceedings/notices were issued only in the name of a dead person and addressed to the very same dead person. In the light of the above referred endorsement by the Land Acquisition Officer concerned, it is clear that at the time of Sec.5-A enquiry, he was aware of the death of the original owner and he has not taken any steps to ascertain the legal heirs of the deceased owner. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer another decision of Raju, J., (as he then was) reported in Muthuswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1993)1 MLJ. 217 . The following observation and conclusion of the learned Judge is very relevant: (para 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.No.138/12B by name Ramasamy Moopanar, S/o.Muthusamy Moopanar died long before. Inspite 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 insofar as it seriously relates to S.F.No.138/ 12B deserves to be quashed. Inspite 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 insofar 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. This vitiates the impugned land acquisition proceedings in so far as it relates to S.F.No.138/12B…” 6. Learned Government Advocate by referring a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay v. I.D.I.Company (P) Ltd. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay v. I.D.I.Company (P) Ltd. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay v. I.D.I.Company (P) Ltd. A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 482 contended that inasmuch as the respondent has taken possession of the land, it is not open to this Court to interfere at this stage. Similar contention was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in C.Sargunam v. The State of Tamil Nadu C.Sargunam v. The State of Tamil Nadu C.Sargunam v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1990)1 L.W. 259 . While rejecting the said contention, their Lordships have made the following conclusion: “14. Similar contention was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in C.Sargunam v. The State of Tamil Nadu C.Sargunam v. The State of Tamil Nadu C.Sargunam v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1990)1 L.W. 259 . While rejecting the said contention, their Lordships have made the following conclusion: “14. One other contention put forth is that, when vesting had taken place under Sec.17(1), there could be no revesting of property. Here again, Mr.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the appellant, quite justifiably points out that there could be no legal impediment in revesting, because in such of those instances wherein the acquisition proceedings are declared illegal by courts, it would result in the title to the property reverting to the erstwhile owner. By operation of law, vesting takes place under Sec.17(1). Hence equally, under Sec.11-A, when there is a failure to adhere to the time limit fixed therein, the entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. The resultant effect will be the revesting takes place by operation of law.” In the light of the conclusion of the Division Bench referred to above, the contention of the learned Government Advocate is liable to be rejected. 7. Learned Government Advocate has also raised another objection stating that even though 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette dated 2. 1982 and declaration under Sec.6 on 3. 1984, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition only in the year 1995; hence on the ground of delay, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is true that both 4(1) notification and 6 declaration were published in the year 1982 and 1984 respectively. For this, the petitioners have offered their explanation in para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that an extent of 1.37 acres in S.F.No.128/2 was sold to various persons and another extent of 75 cents was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the formation of the Coimbatore Siruvani Road and the remaining extent of 52 cents was in their possession and enjoyment. They further stated that the land acquired for the formation of the Coimbatore-Siruvani Road was sub-divided as S.F.No.128/2B and the 52 cents in their possession was sub-divided as S.F.No.128/2C. It is further stated that the petitioners herein laid the said 52 cents in S.F.No.128/2C into house-sites and sold to one T.Jayaram and another M.Vijaya by registered sale deeds dated 5. They further stated that the land acquired for the formation of the Coimbatore-Siruvani Road was sub-divided as S.F.No.128/2B and the 52 cents in their possession was sub-divided as S.F.No.128/2C. It is further stated that the petitioners herein laid the said 52 cents in S.F.No.128/2C into house-sites and sold to one T.Jayaram and another M.Vijaya by registered sale deeds dated 5. 1994 and 15. 1995 respectively. It is also stated that when the said purchasers approached the Veerakeralam Town Panchayat for sanction of building plan to put up building in the sites purchased by them, they were informed that the plan could not be sanctioned as the lands in S.F.No.128/2C had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated that after hearing the said facts from the purchasers, they made enquiries and came to know that the said land has been acquired and then they obtained the copy of the Sec.4(1) notification and Sec.6 declaration. The explanation offered by the petitioners in paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit are acceptable and in such a circumstance, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. If the petitioners were well aware of the acquisition proceedings and kept quiet for several years deliberately then we will easily come to a conclusion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate. As stated earlier, the petitioners have furnished the reasons for the delay and only on hearing from the purchasers of the house-sites and after obtaining necessary particulars such as 4 (1) notification and 6 declaration, they filed the present writ petition on 17. 1995; accordingly, I accept the case of the petitioners for the delay in filing the above writ petition. 8. A careful scrutiny of the files produced by the learned Government Advocate, particularly the endorsement of the Land Acquisition Officer in the Notice under Sec.4(1) for enquiry under Sec.5-A would go to show 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 from the Village Administrative Officer. The village records are maintained by the local revenue officials like Village Administrative Officer who was supposed to even verify on this spot during every Fasli year about the actual cultivation, ownership of the land, land revenue to be collected, etc. The failure to keep the records relating to the village updated by the local village officers in a case of the nature, when at least the death of the person was involved, the respondents could not be allowed to take shelter under the plea that the parties concerned have not taken steps to have the revenue records updated. I have already observed that the Land Acquisition Officer was very well aware of the death of the original owner even at the time of issuance of notice for enquiry under Sec.5-A. In fairness he could have verified the heirs of the deceased from the local village officers, namely, Village Administrative Officers. Had the concerned officer taken necessary steps at the appropriate time, namely, at the time of 5-A enquiry, ascertained the heirs of the deceased erstwhile owner and issued notice to them, no interference would be called for in the acquisition proceedings. It is also clear that after knowing the fact that the erstwhile owner of the land in question had died long before, the respondents proceeded further by issuing declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in the name of a dead person. The procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be countenanced. 9. One more interesting factor to be mentioned here is that in respect of the enquiry for fixing compensation amount for other land, namely, 75 cents in S.F.No.128/2B acquired for the formation of Coimbatore-Siruvani Road, the very same authority issued notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the same were served on the petitioners herein for award enquiry and award was also passed in favour of the petitioners and others. While so, it is unfortunate that the very same authority did not take any effort to send notices to the petitioners in respect of the land in question, namely, 52 cents in S.F.No.128/2C. 10. Under these circumstances, the impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the interim injunction application is closed.