Judgment : P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.2246 of 2001, is the applicant in the above Review Application. 2. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the applicant/writ petitioner filed W . P. No.9521 of 1994 before this Court, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 11.07.2001 along with other connected Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge after finding that the petitioner and other have not approached the Court within the time prescribed, refused to accept their contention and dismissed all the Writ Petitions with liberty to make representation to the concerned authority under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the said or der, the applicant preferred Writ Appeal in W.A. No.2246 of 2001. The Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench on 11.08.2006. 3. The main contention before the Division Bench was that neither the petitioner/appellant nor his vendor/erstwhile owner was served with notice for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It was pointed out by the respondents even in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition that the writ petitioner had not taken step for transfer of patta and his vendor/erstwhile owner did not appear for enquiry, though notice was served. Accepting the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the Division Bench by order dated 11.08.2006 dismissed his Writ Appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. In the Review Application the applicant has stated that after the order of the Division Bench the entire land acquisition records were perused by him and he came to know that no notice was issued to the erstwhile owner of the land and the contention made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is contrary to the records. It is further stated that the counter affidavit contains the non-existent facts. It is also stated that inasmuch as the Division Bench proceeded and dismissed the Writ Appeal on the basis that the erstwhile owner as served with notice, thus there is an error apparent on the face of the order and hence, it requires reconsideration. 5. Based on the above specific averments, notice was ordered in the Review Application. Pursuant to the direction, learned Special Government Pleader produced the records. 5. Based on the above specific averments, notice was ordered in the Review Application. Pursuant to the direction, learned Special Government Pleader produced the records. On verification, it was found that no notice was sent to the erstwhile owner of the land, as claimed in the counter affidavit. As said earlier, based on the contentions made in the counter affidavit, the Division Bench rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed his Appeal. In view of the factual position that no notice was issued to the erstwhile owner, whose name finds a place in the revenue records, we are of the view that in so far as petitioner is concerned, the acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained. Even though the petitioner did not take effective steps for the change of patta, in view of the fact that the erstwhile owner was not issued notice or intimated about the acquisition proceeding, neither the petitioner, nor is vendor had an occasion to contest the acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the above mentioned relevant aspect was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge as well as before the Division Bench, we accept that there is an error apparent on the order of the Division Bench and the same is liable to be reviewed. 6. Apart from the above information, it is not in dispute that the entire Scheme, viz., “Kalapatty Neighbourhood Scheme” has been dropped in view of several orders passed by this Court. 7. Taking note of all these aspects and of the fact that neither the petitioner nor the erstwhile owner of the land was issued notice in the acquisition proceedings, we are of the view that the entire action taken under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Review Application is allowed. Consequently, the entire land acquisition proceedings are quashed. The judgment dated 11.08.2006 made in Writ Appeal No.2246 of 2001, is set aside and the Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order dated 11.07.2001 made in Writ Petition No.9521 of 1994. No costs.