Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. All these three writ appeals have been preferred against the order dated 27. 2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.5470 and 5471 of 1998, which had come to be filed challenging the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings and the notification issued therefor under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act in short). The State has filed Writ Appeal Nos.161 and 162 of 2006 insofar as that order was in favour of the writ petitioners and Writ Petition No.369 of 2006 has been filed by the land owner against that portion of the order whereby the learned single Judge did not extend the benefit of his order to the land standing in the name of Sellathaiammal. 2. In Writ Petition No.5470 of 1998, the petitioner was V. Amsam, who claimed to be the owner of the land in Survey No.479/1; to an extent of 30. 0 hectares; Survey No.80/1, to an extent of 0.87.5 hectares and Survey No.480/2, to an extent of 0.35.0 hectares in Pandavarmangalam Village. She is the owner of the land in Survey No.478 in the very same village and the adjoining land belongs to her husband, in which an industry called Bharath Chemical Industries has been set up. A residential quarters for the employees of this industry has been constructed in Survey No.479/1. There is a tamarind thope in the land and the other lands have been used for agricultural, horticultural and dairy purposes. A notice under Section 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 (Rules in short) dated 112. 1996 was served on the petitioner on 1. 1997 in respect of the lands under Survey Nos.479/1, 479/2, 481, 482/1 and 482/2. It indicated that the enquiry would be held on 1. 1997. The petitioner filed an application dated 1. 1997 requesting sufficient time to file her objections and prayed for time till 2. 1997. A detailed objection dated 11. 1997 was sent by the petitioner, which was received by the respondents on 20.1.1997. Since no enquiry was conducted on 1. 1997, the petitioner was awaiting further communication. 1997. The petitioner filed an application dated 1. 1997 requesting sufficient time to file her objections and prayed for time till 2. 1997. A detailed objection dated 11. 1997 was sent by the petitioner, which was received by the respondents on 20.1.1997. Since no enquiry was conducted on 1. 1997, the petitioner was awaiting further communication. An additional objection was filed indicating that the Panchayat Union had granted approval for the purpose of putting up construction and the factory had been registered as a small scale industry. It was further indicated that the land in Survey No.479/2 did not belong to her and that Survey No.481 belonged to her son. On 27. 1997, she received a communication that the notification under Section 4(1) had been published on 33. 1997 and the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry on 28. 1997. She once again submitted her objections on 18. 1997 stating that about 100 acres of poromboke lands were available very near to the existing place where the Adi Dravidars were residing, but no further communication was served. According to her, the notice in Form-I under Rule 3(i) of the Rules requires 15 days time for filing of objections after service of notice and oral enquiry is required to be conducted only after an opportunity of filing of objections is given. But since the notice was served on the petitioner on 1. 1997 indicating that 1. 1997 was the date of enquiry, the condition relating to 15 days time was not complied with. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the notice was not in accordance with the rules. It is also her grievance that though she had filed by her objections on 11. 1997, which was received by the authorities on 20.1.1997, there was no communication thereafter. According to her, the Special Tahsildar is supposed to hold the enquiry and submit the report to the District Collector. However, copy of such report was never served on the petitioner. It is also her case that though notice in respect of Survey Nos.479/1 and 479/2 refers to the petitioner, she is not the owner of the land in Survey No.479/1 and that land belonged to her mother-in-law, Sellathaiammal, who died in 1984. 3. However, copy of such report was never served on the petitioner. It is also her case that though notice in respect of Survey Nos.479/1 and 479/2 refers to the petitioner, she is not the owner of the land in Survey No.479/1 and that land belonged to her mother-in-law, Sellathaiammal, who died in 1984. 3. In Writ Petition No.5471 of 1998, the contention of the petitioner is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner and therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings must be quashed. He had also produced the certificate issued by the Post Master that Thiru. V. Parthiban, S/o. Vidyasekara Pandian, had not refused to receive any letter addressed to him from 12. 1996 to 19. 1998. In this writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed stating that as per the revenue records, V. Amsam (petitioner in W.P. No.5470 of 1998) was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos.479/1 and 2 and the V. Parthiban (petitioner in W.P. No.5471 of 1998) was the owner in respect of the land in S.No.481 and that Sellathaiammal was the owner of the land in respect of S. Nos.481/1 and 482/2. 4. According to the State, the notice in Form-I under Section 4(2) of the Act was issued to the above persons and they were informed to appear for an enquiry on 1. 1997. The notice was sent by registered post. While Parthiban refused to receive the notice, Amsam was served with the notice and Sellathaiammal was reported to have died. Amsam had sent an objection petition, which was received by the office on 1. 1997. Neither the objectors nor any interested person appeared for the eqnuiry on 1. 1997. The objections filed by the petitioners were received on 20.1.1997 and the objections were rejected. It was indicated that Survey No.479/2 was sold to one Kasinathan on 1. 1997, but the notice had been served on 1. 1997. The notice in Form-I was sent to him on 11. 1997. It was returned without being served and no objection was filed by Kasinathan. One Ganesan had stated that the land in Survey Nos.481/1 and 482/2 belonged to a charity to be maintained by Sellathaiammal, but no documentary evidence was produced at the time of the enquiry. The enquiry showed that the lands were under the enjoyment of Vidyasekara Pandian, the husband of Amsam. One Ganesan had stated that the land in Survey Nos.481/1 and 482/2 belonged to a charity to be maintained by Sellathaiammal, but no documentary evidence was produced at the time of the enquiry. The enquiry showed that the lands were under the enjoyment of Vidyasekara Pandian, the husband of Amsam. His name was also included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the report was submitted by the Special Tahsildar and the District Collector approved of the proposal for acquisition of the lands on 13. 1997. The gazette publication under Section 4(1) of the Act was effected on 33. 1997. The award was passed on 3. 1998. Possession of the lands was taken on 23. 1998 and pattas had also been distributed. It was on the basis of this that the learned single Judge passed the order which is challenged herein. 5. As far as W.P. No.5470 of 1998 is concerned, it was found by the learned single Judge that the counter affidavit indicated that the objections were overruled because the objections were routine in nature. It was found that under the notice, the 15 days time for filing the objections was not given and therefore, the notice was defective in nature and though the objections were filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the notice itself was defective and inconsistent, the petitioner cannot be found fault with merely because she had not followed the time stipulated under the Act. As far as the land standing in the name of the dead person was concerned, the learned single Judge rejected the challenge on the ground that the petitioner had not indicated how she had inherited the property and therefore, the notification was quashed insofar as the land that was admittedly standing in the name of Amsam. 6. Insofar as W.P. No.5471 of 1998 is concerned, the learned single Judge did not accept the case of the Government that the notice was refused to be received by the petitioner. 7. Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the first objection to the challenge ought to be rejected at the threshold on the ground that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no writ petition should be entertained after the award has been passed and therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable. 7. Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the first objection to the challenge ought to be rejected at the threshold on the ground that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no writ petition should be entertained after the award has been passed and therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable. Even on merits, he submitted that this was a case where the rules were complied with fully and there was no violation of the rules. It would be apparent from the records that Parthiban had deliberately refused to receive the notice and in the case of Amsam, her objections were considered, though the objections were received beyond the 15 days time and that would be borne our by records. 8. Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that as far as Parthiban was concerned, it was proved that he had not refused to receive any letter and therefore, no notice was served on him. As far as Amsam was concerned, she had sent a letter on 1. 1997 seeking time, because her husband was away and she needed him for preparing the objections and when she sent the objections later on, they were considered, though it was beyond the time given in the notice under Section 4(2) of the Act. There was no request in her letter for personal hearing and the law also does not require that there should be a personal hearing and it is only after considering her objections that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. As regards Sellathaiammal also, it is well settled that there can be no acquisition proceedings against a dead person. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned senior counsel that the States appeal should be dismissed and the appeals preferred by the land owners should be allowed. 9. The following decisions were relied on. In A.I.R. 1989 Madras 222 (FB) [P.C. Thanikavelu vs. Spl. Dy. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned senior counsel that the States appeal should be dismissed and the appeals preferred by the land owners should be allowed. 9. The following decisions were relied on. In A.I.R. 1989 Madras 222 (FB) [P.C. Thanikavelu vs. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., Madras], where this Court held that though the Revenue has a duty to keep their records up-to-date, there can be cases where the revenue records were not up-to-date and the person who is really interested in the land may not receive the notice of enquiry and in those cases, if it is brought to the notice of the District Collector that the interested person wants to object, the District Collector, as a statutory functionary, cannot decline to afford an opportunity to the person. Though the lands are acquired under the theory of eminent domain, the rule of law must govern and control the executive functions. In 2001 (3) C.T.C. 649 [G. Ramakrishna Naidu vs. District Collector], a learned single Judge of this Court deprecated the practice of casually and informally overruling objections. In 2006 (4) C.T.C. 609 [R. Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai], a Full Bench of this Court answered the reference as to whether it was necessary for the District Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar; was the owner entitled to a copy of the Special Tahsildars report ; and should the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the land owner as follows :- "The owner should be furnished with a copy of the report / recommendation of the authorised officer. Thereafter, he should be given two weeks time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. It is not necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. It is not necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District Collector is expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not Contain the reasons, the decision of the Collector is not ipso facto vitiated and it would always open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court, if such action of the Collector is challenged, that there has been application of mind and the reasons are available in the relevant records relating to such acquisition. The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate decision on the basis of the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer." 10. In (2005 ) 7 S.C.C. 627 [Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai], the Supreme Court held that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and hearing of objections must be an effective one and not mere formality, and there must be proper application of mind regarding the relevant factors in rejecting the irrelevant factors and also that the Act is an expropriatory piece of legislation and therefore, the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. In (2005) 13 S.C.C. 477 [Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory], the Supreme Court held that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone and quashed the notification impugned therein on the ground that it was vague and not in accordance with law. In (2006) 3 M.L.J. 389 [Savithiriammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu], a Division Bench of this Court held that when a notification is issued in the name of a dead person, the proceedings cannot be sustained. In (2006) 3 M.L.J. 389 [Savithiriammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu], a Division Bench of this Court held that when a notification is issued in the name of a dead person, the proceedings cannot be sustained. In 2006 (4) C.T.C. 785 [Sharp Tools vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], a Full Bench of our Court held as follows :- "(I) Objections to the acquisition are to be submitted by the persons interested in the lands within 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification as provided by Subsection (1) of Section 5A of the Act. (II) The 30 days period is to be reckoned from the last mode of publication as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act. (III) In all cases where objections are filed within 30 days as provided under Section 5A (1); hearing the objectors and Department/Company and further enquiry are mandatory. (IV) The Collector shall have to fix, the date of hearing the objections. He has to give notice in Form-B to the Objector as well as to the Department. The Department or Company may file a statement by way of answer to the objections before the date fixed by the Collector. The Department may also depute their Representative to attend the enquiry. (V) If objections are not filed within the time, but the person interested/land owner appears before the Collector pursuant to the Notice in Form-B and makes any objections orally, it is incumbent on the part of the Collector to hear the objector, however, conducting further enquiry is not obligatory but it is only a discretion of the Collector. To put it clear, personal hearing is mandatory and "further enquiry is discretionary depending upon the submission of objections within 30 days of the last mode of the publication. (VI) Rule 4(b) is mandatory and to be followed essentially. In terms of Rule 4{b), Form-B is only a Notice to the objectors and the Department to appear for the hearing and it is not a notice for filing the objections." 11. (VI) Rule 4(b) is mandatory and to be followed essentially. In terms of Rule 4{b), Form-B is only a Notice to the objectors and the Department to appear for the hearing and it is not a notice for filing the objections." 11. In (2005) 3 C.T.C. 691 [S. Harshavardhan vs. State of Tamil Nadu], a Division Bench of this Court, following (2003) 4 S.C.C. 485 [Tej Kaur vs. State of Punjab] and A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 671 [Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig], held that after the award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings initiated thereunder. In 2000 Writ L.R. 477 [Executive Engineer and Administrative officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit vs. Girija Janarthan & Others], a writ petition was filed questioning the acquisition proceedings after the award was passed. It was argued that since the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act did not contain the name of the original owners, the very initiation of acquisition proceedings is vitiated and merely because the award was passed, the right to challenge the proceedings cannot be taken away. The Division Bench referred to (2008) 4 S.C.C. 695 [Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan], where again the Supreme Court had held that a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after possession is taken, is not maintainable. In that case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was dated 3. 1991, the award was passed on 24. 1994 and the writ petition was filed on 30.11.1994. The Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by the State. In Tej Kaurs case (supra), the acquisition was under the Central Act. The grounds raised therein were almost similar to the ones raised here, viz. that there was no enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that the appellants were not given personal hearing. In that case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 5. 1991. The objections were filed by the land owners on 16. 1991. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 13. 1992. The award was passed on 13. 1994 and the writ petition was filed on 14. 1994. The Supreme Court held as follows:- "6. 1991. The objections were filed by the land owners on 16. 1991. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 13. 1992. The award was passed on 13. 1994 and the writ petition was filed on 14. 1994. The Supreme Court held as follows:- "6. It is true that Section 5-A inquiry is an important stage in the acquisition proceedings and a person who is aware of Section 4(1) notification can raise objection to the effect that his property is not required for acquisition and he is also at liberty to raise the contention that the property is not required for any public purpose. It is also true, that the objector must also be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and any violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner of the property whose land is sought to be acquired. In the instant case, however, it is pertinent to note that the Collector had, in fact, conducted the Section 5-A inquiry, though there is no material on record to show that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 were heard in person. The facts and circumstances of Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 clearly show that the objection raised by the appellants was considered and partly allowed by the Collector. About eight acres of land was sought to be acquired from the appellants as per the notification, but out of that, an extent of six acres was excluded from acquisition and only one-and-a-half acres of land was actually acquired by the authorities. This would clearly show that the objection filed by the appellants was considered by the Collector. Moreover, Section 6 declaration was made on 18-3-1992 and the award was passed on 15-3-1994. The appellants filed the writ petition only on 12-4-1994. In spite of the Section 6 declaration having been made on 18-3-1992, the appellants allowed the acquisition proceedings to go on until the award was passed. This fact clearly indicates that the appellants did not have a genuine grievance against Section 5-A inquiry held by the Collector. The appellants filed the writ petition only on 12-4-1994. In spite of the Section 6 declaration having been made on 18-3-1992, the appellants allowed the acquisition proceedings to go on until the award was passed. This fact clearly indicates that the appellants did not have a genuine grievance against Section 5-A inquiry held by the Collector. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment on the grounds now advanced by the appellants." Therefore, even on the preliminary ground that the award had come to be be passed before the filing of the writ petitions and since the consistent view of the Supreme Court appears to be that after the award is passed, there can be no challenge to the acquisition proceedings, we will have to allow the appeals filed by the State and dismiss the one filed by the land owner. But we will also examine the facts and go through the records. 12. The notice in Form-I issued under Rule 3(i) of the Rules to Amsam shows that the land owner has to file the objections within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice. There is a slight variance in the meaning of the notice as found in the Tamil version and as found in the English version. In the Tamil version, the words used are "mwptpg;g[ bfhLf;fg;gl;l njjpapypUe;J", "the date of issue of notice", whereas in the English version, the words are "after service of this notice". This notice calls upon the land owner to be present at 11 a.m. on 1. 1997. This was signed on 112. 1996 and sent by post on 312. 1996. 13. In the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, it is stated that Form-III notice was sent on 112. 1996 by registered post; Amsam had received it on 1. 1997, but Parthiban had refused to receive it, "...th;f kWj;j fhuzj;jpdhy;"; and that Tmt. Sellathaiammal had died and so, the notice could not be served on her. It is stated that on 1. 1997, the enquiry that was to have held did not take place, since no objections were received by then. On 1. 1997, the letter was received from Amsam that since her husband had gone out of town, she wanted time till 2. 1997 for giving her objections. It is stated that on 1. 1997, the enquiry that was to have held did not take place, since no objections were received by then. On 1. 1997, the letter was received from Amsam that since her husband had gone out of town, she wanted time till 2. 1997 for giving her objections. On 20.1.1997, they received her objections, which stated that there are four residential buildings in Survey No.479/1 and that she is getting an annual income of Rs.5,000/- from the tamarind trees and the rest of the land is used as a grazing field for her dairy farm and that there are borewells in two places and that she intends to plant herbal trees and that the properties in Survey Nos.477/1, 480/2 and 488, which belonged to her husband, are fruit orchards which need water and that if the lands in Survey No.479/1 are acquired, then her poultry will suffer and that she had acquired these lands, which were thorny bushes earlier, by spending Rs.40,000/-and that she had sold the property in Survey No.479/2 to Irulandis son Kasinathan and that this land is five kilometers from Pandavarmanagalam Village and that there are many lands near the village and therefore, those lands should be acquired. 14. On the basis of these objections, the officer had again gone to the land in question. It is recorded that the buildings mentioned in Survey No.479/1 did not come within the extent which is sought to be acquired and that for the trees and the acquired land, compensation can be given separately. As regards the use of the lands as grazing field, the officer found that this is false and that the land is a stony ground and that it would have been several years since there had been any agriculture in this land. It is also stated that the objection that the borewells are required for the fruit orchards and that the poultry will be affected are all grounds which cannot be accepted in a land acquisition proceedings and it is merely to stall the proceedings. As regards Survey No.479/2, it was found that after the proceedings commenced on 21. 1997, a sale deed has been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti in favour of one Kasinathan. Therefore, this Kasinthan was also given a notice on 12. 1997, which was returned Unserved. As regards Survey No.479/2, it was found that after the proceedings commenced on 21. 1997, a sale deed has been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpatti in favour of one Kasinathan. Therefore, this Kasinthan was also given a notice on 12. 1997, which was returned Unserved. Thus, the Tahsildar recommends that for that land, Kasinathan can be given the compensation. As regards the property standing in the name of Sellathaiammal, one Ganesan had given an application that there was a Will executed by Sellathaiammal by which the property was given to a Trust, to be administered by her grandsons, who were then minors, until they attain majority and those grandsons are still minors. But the documents were not produced before them. The lands were still in the management of Vidyasekara Pandian, the husband of Amsam. The officer records that no objection was received from Parthiban. Thereafter, the notice sent under Section 4(2) of the Act was received by all the parties. 15. The learned senior counsel mainly stressed the fact that since the formalities and the procedure required by law had not been complied with, the entire acquisition proceedings would be a nullity and the fact that an award had been passed will not cure the defect and therefore, even if the writ petition had been filed subsequent to the award, the writ petition shall not be dismissed on the preliminary ground that after an award, there can be no challenge to the acquisition proceedings. However, we have already referred to (2008) 4 S.C.C. 695 (supra) where again the facts showed that there was no evidence that the land owner was heard in person or that the Collector had in fact conducted the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Central Act. But however, the Supreme Court, in that case, noted that out of the entire eight acres of land, six acres were excluded from acquisition and only 1½ acres had been acquired by the authorities. Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the objection filed by the land owners had been considered by the Collector and when the writ petition was filed on 14. 1994, one month after the award, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed and was allowed to stand. Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the objection filed by the land owners had been considered by the Collector and when the writ petition was filed on 14. 1994, one month after the award, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed and was allowed to stand. But we have also satisfied ourselves as to the facts and what is seen in the records in order to see if the notice was served and whether the objections were heard and whether the objections were considered. Even the Full Bench in K. Paris case had said that mere non-furnishing of report would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being vitiated and again the non-existence of reasons in the communication to the land owner will also not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and it would be the question of prejudice to the land owner which has to be considered and if the relevant records show application of mind and reasons are available therein, the authorities may prove the same before the Court. 16. In the present case, V. Amsam, the petitioner in W.P. No.5470 of 1998, was served with the notice on 1. 1997. According to the rules, she ought to have been given 15 clear days time to reply. Though the notice under Section 4(2) of the Act is dated 112. 1996, it appears to have been posted later, which is the result why she received it only on 1. 1997. The enquiry was slated on 1. 1997, but it was not conducted on 1. 1997, since Amsam had asked for time to file her objections. The objections were received by the respondents on 20.1.1997. We have gone through the objections and we find that there is no request in the objections for granting her personal hearing. We also find in the records that the officer had gone to the lands himself, had examined the lands sought to be acquired in the context of each of the objections raised by her and had given reasons for rejecting them. Though in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the objections are routine in nature, that is not how the authority has dealt with the objections. We have already referred to the relevant records which shows that her objections regarding fruit orchards and the objections regarding her poultry suffering are all without merit. Though in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the objections are routine in nature, that is not how the authority has dealt with the objections. We have already referred to the relevant records which shows that her objections regarding fruit orchards and the objections regarding her poultry suffering are all without merit. Therefore, the authority has considered each of her objections and has only thereafter rejected it and has proceed to pass the award on 3. 1998. The writ petitions were filed only on 23. 1998, though Amsam and Parthiban knew about the proceedings at least by the early half of 1997. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the challenge made by Amsam with regard to the acquisition proceedings not merely on the ground that the writ petition had been filed after the award was passed, but also for the following reasons. The enquiry was not held on 1. 1997, the authorities had deferred it until they received the objections. Amsam did not ask for personal hearing. The officer had gone to the lands in question not once but twice to see if the objections were sustainable. The authority has satisfied the statutory requirements by applying his mind to each of the objections and dealing with the same accordingly. 17. As regards V. Parthiban, petitioner in W.P. No.5471 of 1998, his case is that he did not refuse to receive the notice. It is relevant to note that Parthiban is the son of Amsam. Parthiban and Amsam live at the same address. The first letter written by Amsam seeking time is to the effect that since her husband is out of town, she needs his help to give a suitable reply to the notice. The entire family lived together. It is true that the returned cover is not found in the file. But, there are contemporaneous records in the form of the report of the Special Tahsildar which shows that Parthiban had refused to receive the cover, "th;f kWj;jjhy;" are the words used. The petitioner, of course, relies on a certificate issued by the postal authorities that no cover was refused to be received by Parthian during the relevant period. In the first place, whoever signed that certificate had not supported it by giving evidence or giving a supporting affidavit. The petitioner, of course, relies on a certificate issued by the postal authorities that no cover was refused to be received by Parthian during the relevant period. In the first place, whoever signed that certificate had not supported it by giving evidence or giving a supporting affidavit. Secondly, while postal authorities can testify to the fact that a particular letter has been served on a particular address, as far as return of a cover is concerned, it may be for different reasons like no such addressee or addressee left or addressee refused to receive. We are not sure to what extent we can rely on this certificate given long after to the effect that no letter was refused to be received by Parthiban. 18. On the other hand, we are more inclined to accept the contemporaneous record in the files maintained by the respondents which we have no reason to suspect as fabricated, and the contemporaneous records show that Parthiban had refused to receive the letter. It is to be noted that all the three letters, one addressed to Amsam, the other addressed to Parthiban and another addressed to Sellathaiammal, have all been sent by registered post to the same address, and there is no reason why the letter sent to Parthiban alone should not have been served on him. As regards the letter sent to Sellathaiammal it had been returned for the correct reason, viz. Sellathaiammal had died. Therefore, we do not accept the case of the petitioner Parthiban had that refused to receive the notice. On the other hand, we are inclined to accept veracity of the files and the stand of the Government that Parthiban had refused to receive the notice. Therefore, the notice sent under Section 4(2) of the Act is deemed to have been served on Parthiban and he had chosen not to give his objections. Instead, he had chosen to write a letter in May, 1997 as though he had not received the notice under Section 4(2) of the Act and that he was given to understand that there are proceedings for acquisition. Even at this stage, he could have given his objections, or he could have challenged the proceedings. He did not choose to do so and has come up with the writ petition after the award came to be passed. Even at this stage, he could have given his objections, or he could have challenged the proceedings. He did not choose to do so and has come up with the writ petition after the award came to be passed. In these circumstances, we are inclined to accept the stand of the Government that the procedure stipulated and all the formalities prescribed have been complied with and therefore, there can be no valid challenge to the acquisition proceedings by Parthiban. 19. As regards Sellathaiammal, the notice under Section 4(2) was sent to a dead person. The notification under Section 4(1) is in the name of her son. Though the authorities knew when the registered letter was returned that Sellathaiammal had died, there was time enough for them to rectify the mistake and issue the notice under Section 4(2) to the legal heirs of Sellathaiammal. It is true that they had set up a will which, according to the State, they were not able to prove. But, they knew that the husband of Amsam, viz. Vidyasekara Pandian, was the son of Sellathaiammal. Therefore, he is one of the heirs under the Hindu Law. Care should have been taken so that the notice was issued on the legal heirs of the dead owner. In (2006) 3 M.L.J. 389 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that when a notification is issued in the name of a dead person, the proceedings cannot be sustained. In this case alone, though the challenge is made after the award is passed, since the proceedings against a dead person is void ab initio, we cannot sustain the acquisition proceedings merely on the ground that the award has been passed. 20. For all these reasons, Writ Appeal Nos.161 and 162 of 2006 filed by the State are allowed and Writ Appeal No.369 of 2006 filed by the land owner is also allowed. It is open to the authorities concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law in respect of the lands that stood in the name of Sellathaiammal, if they require those lands for the objects set down in the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P. Nos.779 of 2006 in W.A. No.369 of 2006 and W.A.M.P. Nos.64 and 65 of 2009 in W.A. Nos.161 and 162 of 2006 are closed.