Judgment :- Petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for formation of Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. According to the petitioners, an extent of 1.43 acres in Old Survey No. 1933, Nagercoil village, Agasteeswaram Taluk originally belonged to one Sudalimadan Nadar, who passed away in 1964. After his death, it belonged to his two sons, namely, Mahalingam and Paramarthalingam equally. The above two respective sharers have sold nearly 34 cents in total to 3 persons, namely, Suyambulingam, Henry George and Poulin during 1976 and 1980 by 3 sale deeds by the respective owners. The balance extent of 1.08 acres is included in this writ petition which belong to the petitioners. 2. It is further stated that the respondents in order to acquire the said lands along with other lands for the formation of Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 1213, Housing and Urban Development Act dated 17-9-91. The same was published in the Gazette dated 11-12-1991. Though the petitioners are owners, their name was not mentioned and there was no notice till date of filing of the writ petition. Followed by the said Government Order, the first respondent issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No. 854 dated 14-12-92 and gazetted on the same date. Here also, the owners of the land were not shown as interested persons. Till date, no notice and the petitioners herein came to know about this only during September, 1995. Immediately the petitioners 2 and 5 made written representations to the Collector in September, 1995. Till date, there is no reply; hence the present writ petition. 3. The first respondent has not filed counter affidavit with reference to the various averments made by the petitioners. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.M.P.No. 35046 of 2002 stating that the acquisition proceedings is for public purpose, as defined under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 4 (1) Notification in this case was caused on 11-12-1999 and was published in Kumari Murasu and Athirstam dated 11th and 12th December, 1991 respectively. These two dailies are mostly circulated in Kanyakumari District, particularly in the locality. Section 6 Declaration was published in Tamil Dailies Dhinathoothu and Makkalkural on 15-12-92. The 4 (1) Notification in this case was caused on 11-12-1999 and was published in Kumari Murasu and Athirstam dated 11th and 12th December, 1991 respectively. These two dailies are mostly circulated in Kanyakumari District, particularly in the locality. Section 6 Declaration was published in Tamil Dailies Dhinathoothu and Makkalkural on 15-12-92. These two dailies have got large circulation including the locality where the land is situated. Except the above statement regarding publication in two dailies and their circulation in the local area, no other information has been furnished either by the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the foremost contended that though the petitioners are owners of the land in question, their names do not find a place in the Gazette Notification and they were not issued notice for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In the absence of counter affidavit by the Government, first respondent herein, we have to go only with the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 6 wherein Sudalaimadan alone is shown as owner of the land in question. It is the claim of the petitioners that the said Sudalaimadan Nadar passed away even in the year 1964. It is also their claim that out of the total extent of 1.43 acres, 1.08 acres which are the subject of the writ petition, belonged to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners neither were shown as owners of the land in the gazette notification nor they were served with individual notice to participate in the 5-A enquiry. There is no material to show that any effort was made to the respondents to verify the ownership of the land at the relevant time, namely, on the date of 4(1) notification. Even according to the respondents, 4 (1) notification is dated 11-12-99, in the absence of information that at the time of initiation of acquisition proceedings and on the date of 4 (1) notification in the Government Gazette, they verified the revenue records and ascertain information from the officials like Village Administrative Officer regarding the ownership of the land, and inasmuch as the said Sudalaimadan Nadar died in 1964, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Had the respondents or their officers namely the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer taken some effort in ascertaining the ownership, they could have issued notice to the petitioners who are claiming to be owners of the land in question and heard their objections. Such recourse has not been followed by the respondents. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the acquisition is for implementation for Neighbourhood Scheme at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in the absence of prior approval by the Government, the same cannot be proceeded with. Here again, in the absence of counter affidavit by the first respondent, the said contention cannot be rejected. 7. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Notification under Section 4 (1) declaration under Section 6 were not duly published in the dailies which have a circulation in the locality. In the limited counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that Section 4(1) notification caused on 11-12-1999 and the same was published in Kumari Murasu and Athirstam dated 11th and 12th December, 1991 respectively and these two dailies are mostly circulated in Kanyakumari District, including the locality where the land is situated. The same officer has also reiterated that declaration under Section 6 was published in Tamil dailies-Dhinathoothu and Makkalkural on 15-12-1992 and these two dailies have got large circulation including the locality where the land is situated. Though the said point has not been raised in the affidavit filed at the time of filing of the writ petition, in the light of the information furnished by the second respondent in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.M.P.No. 35046 of 2002, there is no reason to reject the claim that the Tamil dailies where the publication was effected are having circulation in the locality. 8. 8. In the light of what is stated above, particularly in the light of the fact that the respondents initiated acquisition proceedings against a dead person (the owner being Sudalaimadan Nadar) who passed away in 1964 and no steps have been taken to issue notice to the legal heirs of the deceased pattadar, their names not shown in the notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act they were not afforded opportunity to put-forth their objection in the 5-A enquiry, I am satisfied that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. 9. In the result, the impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh, if they so desire, by following the mandatory provisions of law. W.P.M.P.No. 26809/2001 is closed.