Judgment : 1. Thedeceased first petitioner, viz., M.Saroja had filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Land Acquisition Proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.647, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.4.1983 and quash the same so far as the petitioners land in and extent of 5 1/2 cents in S.No.35.A.3 of Hosur village, Dharmapuri District is concerned. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the deceased first petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) would submit that she was the lawful owner of 4 1/2 cents of land located in S.No.35.A.3 having succeeded to the estate of her late husband and that she was in possession and enjoyment of the same; that her husband purchased the said vacant site on 112. 1976 by a registered sale deed executed by one Puttaiah; that after the purchase, he constructed a dwelling house thereon in 1978 which was assessed to property tax besides the same being connected with electricity service and water supply; that subsequently, her husband also constructed three shops therein with approved plan of the local panchayat. .3. The further contentions of the writ petitioner are that while so, the third respondent issued a show cause notice under Secs.84(2) and 85(1) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as to why an order of eviction should not be passed under Sec.84(1) of the said Act, further contemplating removal of the building thereon; that on enquiry made through her lawyer, she learnt that land acquisition notices have been issued in support of the said land under Sec.4(i) of the Act issued in G.O.Ms.No.788, Housing and Urban Development Department, on 16. 1980 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 7. 1980 notifying the name of one Hussain Bee in respect of S.No.34.A, 3.B in spite of her husband having purchased the said land as early as on 112. 1980 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 7. 1980 notifying the name of one Hussain Bee in respect of S.No.34.A, 3.B in spite of her husband having purchased the said land as early as on 112. 1976 itself; that subsequently, Sec.6 Declaration had also been made in G.O.Ms.No.647, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.4.1983 which got published in the Gazette on 20.4.1983; that in the said Sec.6 Declaration, S.Nos.35-A 3-B have been shown to be belonging to the said Hussain Bee; that after, there had been no communication of any kind; that notice had been served on the predecessor in title to her husband, viz., Puttaiah; that no enquiry notice under Sec.5-A or the award enquiry notice under Sec.9(3) had been served on the petitioners husband; that in spite of the petitioner being in possession. There had been continuous negation of all established norms. Principles and statutory rules, regulations which are mandatory and statutory and the land has been sought to be acquired beyond all rules and regulations which cannot be comprehended at all; that left which no alternative remedy, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for the reliefs extracted supra. 4. In the counter affidavit files on behalf of the respondents, the respondents generally denying the allegations of the writ petition would also specifically state that the Housing Board applied for the acquisition of 67.19 acres of land in S.No.28 etc. in Hosur and 26.12 acres of land in S.No.890/3 etc. of Chennathur village in Hosur Taluk for the construction of houses to accommodate residential facilities for the public; that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and proposals under Sec.4(i) of the Act were submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Sub Collector, Hosur; that the Government approved the same in G.O.Ms.No.788, Housing and Urban Development, dated 16. 1980 which got published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 7. 1980; that notice for Sec.5-A enquiry was issued on 27. 1980 posting the enquiry on 20.8.1990; that no objection was raised on the part of the writ petitioner; that on delegating the power to the Special Tahsildar as per the Gazette publication dated 11. 1981, Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, Direction under Sec.7 of the Act were approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.647, dated 23. 1983 and the award itself had been passed in Award No.15/85 dated 111. 1985. 5. 1981, Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, Direction under Sec.7 of the Act were approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.647, dated 23. 1983 and the award itself had been passed in Award No.15/85 dated 111. 1985. 5. Thefurther contentions of the counter affidavit are that S.No.35A/3A was registered in the name of one Sunithi Sarvotham in Patta No.878; that S.Nos.35A/3A2 and 35A/3C were in the names of Ramachandrachetty, Thimmarayappa, Venkataramanappa, Sunithi Sarvotham, Sivamma, Govindappa, Basamma, Vasu, Chinnadurai; that patta No.436 in S.No.35A/3B was registered in the name of Hussain Bee, and, therefore, it is not correct to say that the writ petitioner or her late husband Muthurayappa are the owner of the S.No.35A/3; that the name of the predecessor in title to the petitioners husband, viz., Puttaiah does not find place in the village accounts for these survey numbers; that the site referred to in S.Nos35-A/3C1, 35A/3B with an extent of 60 cents relate to Hussain Bee and the same had been acquired in Award No.15/86 dated 111. 1985 and handed over to the Housing Board on 211. 1985; that in the land in question, the petitioner had encroached and has put up asbestos sheds, roof building, occupying one as cycle shop, room and lavatory in 20 cents; that the Housing Board authorities have issued notice for vacating the encroachment in S.Nos.35A/3A, 35A/3B and 35A/3C1. .6. The further contentions of the counter affidavit are that notification under Sec.4(i) of the Act was published on 7. 1980; that publication in the village had also been effected by affixure in the Taluk office and the Sub-Registrar, Office on 21. 1980 and 8. 1980 respectively and hence, the procedures have not been violated; that the procedure of publishing the notice of acquisition in the regional language in the newspapers circulating in the locality has been introduced in the Act on 29. 1980 and 8. 1980 respectively and hence, the procedures have not been violated; that the procedure of publishing the notice of acquisition in the regional language in the newspapers circulating in the locality has been introduced in the Act on 29. 1984 and hence, the question of such publication in this case does not arise at all since the notification in this case does not arise at all since the notification in this case was prior to the introduction of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984; that the question of dropping our the writ petitioners land in S.No.35A/3C1 does not arise since it had already been acquired and handed over to the Housing Board; that the encroachment of the writ petitioner in S.No.35A/3B which is adjacent to S.No.35A/3C1; that eviction proceedings have been instituted by housing board; that the entire compensation amount had also been deposited in the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, under Sec.30 of the Act; that the petition does not deserve any consideration and the same has to be rejected. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that it was the husband of the deceased first petitioner and the father of the other petitioners who purchased the property sought to be acquired under a registered sale deed dated 112. 1976; that in 1980. the petitioners got the planning permission and started paying the property tax; that they have also obtained electricity and water service connections and are in possession of the property, till date; that without notice to the petitioner, the government have initiated the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of the construction of housed, by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board; that all of a sudden, they issued notice dated 10. 1991 under Secs.84(2) and 85(1) of the Act, not only calling for the deceased first petitioner to appear before the competent authority of the Housing Board, but also threatening that if no explanation was tender or the explanation tendered was not acceptable, final orders would be passed to evict her besides herself being summarily evicted without any further notice issued and further contemplating coercive steps under Sec.85 of the said Act; that the petitioner issued the reply dated 110. 1991 pointing our the actual facts connected to the property and the non-service of notice on her. Then, the petitioner was given to understand that on 16. 1991 pointing our the actual facts connected to the property and the non-service of notice on her. Then, the petitioner was given to understand that on 16. 1980 itself, the 4(1) notification had been issued for acquisition of the land in question, as per G.O.Ms.No.788, dated 16. 1980 and thereafter, the Gazette publication had been made on 7. 1980 and Sec.6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.647, dated 23. 1983 had also been made; that all these have been made in the names of others without any notice to the petitioner. 8. Having thus argued on facts, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would cite an earlier order passed by a single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3907 of 1986, dated 13. 1996, wherein the learned single Judge has cited an earlier Bench judgment delivered in P.C.Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras P.C.Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras P.C.Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras (1989)1 MLJ. 222: (1989)1 L.W. 232 wherein it is held: “It is 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 Sec.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”. Citing the above Division Bench judgment, the learned single Judge has held that the petitioner therein is a person really interested in the land and the enquiry having been held without notice to him and remarking that the impugned order could not be sustained would quash the same. 9. Citing yet another order delivered by a single judge of this Court in Muthu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu 1986 Writ L.R. 391 the learned counsel would point out therein: “Enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act is not an empty formality and notice for such enquiry has got to be served strictly in accordance with the mandates of Sec.45 of the Act. While discountenancing the service of notice in a casual manner without adhering to the rigour of the provisions of the Act….. The prescriptions of the statute in the matter of service to notices should be strictly followed and carried out. While discountenancing the service of notice in a casual manner without adhering to the rigour of the provisions of the Act….. The prescriptions of the statute in the matter of service to notices should be strictly followed and carried out. It must be satisfied that the person concerned could not be found after reasonable and diligent enquiries within the meaning of the Act. The mandates of the Statute stand violated in the present case. This obliges me to interfere in writ jurisdiction and accordingly the writ petition is allowed”. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contending that here is a case wherein the name of the petitioner in spite of being the lawful owner of the property sought to be acquired, does not find place in the notice at all though Sec.5-A enquiry is mandatory; that under the Land Acquisition Act, they have completely omitted the petitioner and have passed the award in 1995. 10. In reply, the learned Government Advocate on the writ side, citing number of judgments reported in various journals would justify that there had been sufficient notice served on the petitioner as contemplated by law and no procedure has been flouted. For sufficiently of notice, the learned counsel would cite a judgment delivered in W.B.Housing Board v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta W.B.Housing Board v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta W.B.Housing Board v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta (1997)6 S.C.C. 207 wherein in a land acquisition proceeding under West bengal Land Acquisition Act, under Sec.3(2), order requisitioning land, the service effected on a person recorded as owner in the record though he had already sold the land to another person prior to the requisition, but name of the purchaser not yet entered in the record of Rights despite his applying for mututation, it is held therein: “The provisions of service of notice stood complied when notices were served on the persons recorded as owners in the Record of Rights. Record of Rights is a statutory document maintained by the prescribed authority under Sec.50 of the Act and it is a notice to the public at large as to who are the owners of the land in the records of the authorities. Under Sec.3 of the W.B. Land Reforms Act, 1955, the Act overrides other laws if there is anything inconsistent with what is stated in the Act. Under Sec.3 of the W.B. Land Reforms Act, 1955, the Act overrides other laws if there is anything inconsistent with what is stated in the Act. Of course, the Collector could have asked for a report from the prescribed authority concerned if any application for mutation of the land was pending with him. But that would be expecting too much form the Collector. It is no part of the duty of the Collector to make a roving inquiry into ownership of the persons.” 11. For the same point, a single Judge of this Court, in a judgment delivered in P.Tamilarasan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner and Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department P.Tamilarasan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner and Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department P.Tamilarasan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner and Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department (1999)2 MLJ. 50 : (1999)1 C.T.C. 586 has held: “Statutory duty is cast on Collector only to serve notice on persons whose names are found in the revenue records and on other about whos interest in land information is received by the Collector either by vendor or from purchaser regarding his interest in land under acquisition - Owner of land whose name is not found in revenue records and about whose ownership no information was received by Collector cannot complain of want of notice of acquisition proceedings - Proceedings do not suffer from any legal infirmity”. For delay in making the award, the learned Government Advocate would cite a judgment of the Apex Court delivered in State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 497 wherein it is held that in view of Sec.48-A, the provision under Sec.231-A and the delay on the part of the writ petitioners in not approaching the court within a reasonable time, we are of the opinion that the delay in passing the awards after the publication of the Declaration under Sec.6 cannot be held to be fatal. 12. Yet another judgment delivered in Mahavir v. The Rural Institute, Amaravathi Mahavir v. The Rural Institute, Amaravathi Mahavir v. The Rural Institute, Amaravathi (1998)2 MLJ. 12. Yet another judgment delivered in Mahavir v. The Rural Institute, Amaravathi Mahavir v. The Rural Institute, Amaravathi Mahavir v. The Rural Institute, Amaravathi (1998)2 MLJ. (S.C.) 19:(1998) 1 C.T.C. 180 has been cited by the learned Government Advocate wherein it is held that the acquisition is complete when Government take possession of acquired land - Title of original owner of lands extinguished Encumbrance made by owner after 4(i) notice does not bind Government. The last judgment cited by the learned Government Advocate is one delivered in H.M.Kelogirao v. Government of A.P. H.M.Kelogirao v. Government of A.P. H.M.Kelogirao v. Government of A.P. (1997)7 S.C.C. 722 wherein it is held that the possession of land taken after notification under Sec.4 (i); and Declaration under Sec.6 since the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 13. Though the decided cases cited on the part of the learned Government Advocate on the writ side is somewhat impressive to the effect that regarding notice to be issued to the owner, in general, the Collector could go according to the revenue records and the actual owner cannot complain of want of notice of acquisition proceedings and that delay in passing of the award after the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 cannot be held to be fatal and that the title of the original owner of the lands get extinguished, the moment the award is passed since the land stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances from then onwards, still, these propositions of law held in a generalised form could only be applied in the normal course and not under extraordinary circumstances which could occur in cases wherein, absolutely without any notice or indication to the actual owner or person vitally interested in the land sought to be acquired, wherein the principles of natural justice emerge warranting due opportunity to the heard. It cannot at all be argued that notice to a person, other than the original owner, on the date of 4(i) notification could be construed as sufficient opportunity to the owner or the interested person. 14. It cannot at all be argued that notice to a person, other than the original owner, on the date of 4(i) notification could be construed as sufficient opportunity to the owner or the interested person. 14. On the contrary, the decisions cited on the part of the petitioner have direct application to the facts of the case in hand contemplating notice to the actual owner or the person interested in the property on the date of 4(i) notification and thereafter, for the enquiry under Sec.5-A and for Declaration under Sec.6. Hence, it cannot be concluded that in those names which figure in the revenue records if notices are served even if they are not the owners not interested persons it is sufficient notice, many genuine cases would suffer untold hardships without any opportunity to be heard. Moreover, there is no guarantee for the correctness of the entries effected in the revenue records which more often than not become either false or irregular or incorrect. 15. Therefore, blunt service on persons whose names figure in the revenue records cannot be said to be compliance of service within the meaning of law nor in adherence of the high principles of natural justice. It is not very difficult for the acquisition authority, who is a revenue officer, invariably to find out the actual owner at the time of initiating the acquisition proceedings so as to serve the notice on him, passing on information regarding the proposed acquisition and calling for him to set in his objections, if any, so as to decide the same to set in his objections, if any, so as to decide the same with due opportunity to the owner of the land in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order cited on the part of the petitioner since being akin to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand concluding that following the Full Bench decision of this court wherein it is held that it is elementary that to be consistent with the principles of natural justice, the actual owner shall be put on notice before his lands are acquired and his objections heard and considered. The enquiry contemplated under Sec.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. 16. The enquiry contemplated under Sec.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. 16. In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.647, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.4.1983 regarding the lands of the petitioner, measuring 4 1/2 cents in S.No.35.A.3 of Hosur village, Dharmapuri District is quashed. No costs. 17. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings with due opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. 18. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.24381 and 24382 of 1991 are closed.