Judgment :- K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P.No.10307 of 1991, dated 22. 1999. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). The facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ appeal are admitted by both sides and are as follows:- .(i) The impugned proceedings are initiated for acquisition of lands for provision of house sites for Adi dravidars. An extent of 0.91.5 hectare in Survey Nos.18/3 and 18/4 of Kolakkaravady village was sought to be acquired and in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the names of Lakshmanan (writ petitioner) Raman and Annamalai were shown as owners of strips of land comprised within the said extent. All the three of them are sons of Late Kuppusamy and notice was sent to all of them calling upon them to file their obj ections and for an enquiry on 29. 1989. Lakshmanan, the writ petitioner filed his representation raising certain objections including his claim that in a partition effected in the year 1986, the lands in question fell to his share and he was in enjoyment of the lands and that neither Annamalai, nor Raman had any interest over the lands. Both Raman, Annamalai appeared for the enquiry and submitted that after the partition in the family and after executing a koor-chit the lands fell to the share of the writ petitioner and that as such they had no interest over the land. A perusal of the order under Section 5-A of the Act as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents discloses that the Tahsildar overruled the objections stating that the Revenue records disclose only the name of Raman and Annamalai and since the koor-chit was not registered, the same was not taken into account as a valid document. With the result, neither the objections of lakshmanan were considered in the order under Section 5-A; nor was any follow-up of action taken with reference to his objections in compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rules. These facts are not disputed by both sides and the appellant does not dispute that his name is not entered into the Revenue records. 3. These facts are not disputed by both sides and the appellant does not dispute that his name is not entered into the Revenue records. 3. The learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition agreed with the action of the acquiring authority and hence the present writ appeal. 4. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant herein could be held as a "person interested" and if so whether failure to consider his objection would vitiate the enquiry. The expression "person Interested" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Act as including all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of acquisition of the land and any person claiming easement affecting the land shall also be deemed to be interested in the land. Under Section 5-A (3) of the Act also, it is stated that for the purpose of the Section a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land who would be entitled to claim an interest in the compensation if the land was acquired under the Act. 5. It is true that as far as the initial stage of acquisition proceedings are concerned, the acquiring authorities are not required to hold any enquiry into the ownership or the various claims over the property beyond the names disclosed in the Revenue records as owners or as "persons interested". But where the enquiry reveals that the ownership of the land vests in the some person whose name is not shown in the Revenue records, he is bound to issue notice to him and give him an opportunity of being heard vide a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in P.C.Thanikavelu v. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., Madras, A.I.R.1989 Mad. 222. It would be relevant to note the following observation in the said judgment: "In such cases, if it is brought to the notice of the collector by the erstwhile land owner or by any other person including the present owner thereof, of the names of interested persons, the collectors as a statutory functionary cannot decline to afford an opportunity to the person who is really interested in the land and close the enquiry. When such information is brought to the notice of the Collector, it is needless to say that the principles of natural justice enjoin upon him an obligation to issue notice to the person who is found to be really interested in the land even though his name may not be found entered in the revenue records. It is true that the Government has the prerogative to acquire lands belonging to individuals for a public purpose sanctioned under the theory of eminent domain. But the rule of law which governs and controls the executive functions in the thread that runs through the fabric of constitutional democracy, the rule of law behoves the Government to act fairly and reasonably and the principles of natural justice are the quintessence of such fair play and reasonableness. The decision reported in Padmavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1978 (91) LW 80 does not reflect the true statement of law. The Supreme Court has held in Swadesh Cotton Mills v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 that even in the absence of express reference to observance of principles of natural justice, such principles should be followed whenever it affects the rights of parties. It cannot be gainsaid it that when the lands of an individual are acquired, albeit he may be paid compensation, his civil rights may be affected. It is therefore elementary that, to be consistent with the principles of natural justice, such a person should be put on notice before his lands are acquired and his objection heard and considered. The enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act would be full and complete only when the person who is really interested in the land is put on notice. But, at the same time, it is made clear that individual notice is mandatory only to those persons whose names are found in the revenue records or who are found by the Collector as persons interested on information received through reliable source." 6. But, at the same time, it is made clear that individual notice is mandatory only to those persons whose names are found in the revenue records or who are found by the Collector as persons interested on information received through reliable source." 6. In the present case, even assuming that the enquiry officer was justified in ignoring the partition deed on the ground that it was not registered and the name of Lakshman did not appear in the Revenue records and also ignoring the statements of Raman and Annamalai to the effect that Lakshmanan was the real owner of the property, the most crucial feature is that in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself, the name of Lakshmanan is disclosed as one of the interested persons. If even in the absence of his name in the Revenue records, and if in the preliminary enquiry prior to the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself, his interest in the property had been disclosed and he is also recognised as a person interested, the subsequent attempt and exercise on the part of the authority to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and to hold that the appellant was not an interested person, is uncalled for and unsustainable. More so, when both persons whose name appear in the revenue records had come before the authority disclaiming any interest in the property and had disclosed the name Lakshmanan as the real owner. The expression "person interested" is couched in a very wide manner which would include even a tenant or a holder of easementary right etc. The reason is that principles of natural justice require that an opportunity should be given to all persons who are genuinely interested in the property. Of course, we make it clear that the acquiring authority need not mention the persons beyond the names disclosed in the revenue records, but if the enquiry clearly discloses that some other individuals was the real owner of the property and person interested, it would be erroneous to ignore the said claim. Of course, we make it clear that the acquiring authority need not mention the persons beyond the names disclosed in the revenue records, but if the enquiry clearly discloses that some other individuals was the real owner of the property and person interested, it would be erroneous to ignore the said claim. In the present case, in stating that the parties where trying to delay the proceedings, it is actually the enquiring authority who is guilty of having unnecessarily delayed and protracted the proceedings by adopting an unreasonable attitude of ignoring their own notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and in having assumed the role of Civil Court adjudicating upon the rights of the parties. All that was required to be done was to have dealt with the appellants objection also and to have treated him as one of the persons interested. One further strange feature is that even in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the appellants name has been disclosed as the owner of the property. If so, there was absolutely no justification for having held that he was not the owner of the property and to have failed to deal with his objections. 7. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the action of the acquiring authority in not dealing with the objections of the appellant. 8. In the result, the writ appeal has to be allowed, consequently, quashing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.