Judgment 1. The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Nos.L5/7-7A to an extent of 0.18.81 and 0.00.797 Ares situated in Vadiveeswaram Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, belonged to the grandfather of the petitioners. During his lifetime, their grandfather executed a Will, dated 25.09.1970, bequeathing his properties in favour of his sons. After his demise, on 26.08.1973, the said Will came into force and the father of the petitioners was entitled to the said property and all the revenue records stood transferred in the name of the father of the petitioners – N.Ponnusamy. When the matter stood thus, the father of the petitioners died, on 13.09.1993, leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. While so, Notification in G.O.Ms.No.524, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 19.06.1990, came to be published, which was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.27-C, dated 11.07.1990, acquiring the land of the petitioners for the purpose of Neighbourhood Scheme and later, the Government issued a declaration in G.O.Ms.No.1115, Housing and Urban Development [G] Department, dated 01.08.1991, to that effect. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition. 2. The only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the said notification and the subsequent Government Order have been issued in the name of a dead person, viz., in the name of the grandfather of the petitioners, and hence, the impugned notification and the subsequent Government Orders are liable to be quashed. 3. The learned Government Advocate would also fairly submit that the impugned notification and the subsequent Government Order have been issued in the name of a dead person. 4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 5. Admittedly, on a perusal of the records, it is seen that the impugned notification has been issued in the name of the grandfather of the petitioners, who expired, on 26.08.1973. The petitioners also enclosed a copy of the death certificate of their grandfather. 6. In Savithiriammal v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 389 , at Paragraph Nos.4 and 5, a Division Bench of this Court, held as follows: "4. We verified the 4(1) Notification, 5-A enquiry proceedings and Sec.6 Declaration. As rightly pointed out, in the Notification and Declaration, it is stated that Thiruvenkatasamy is the owner of the lands in S. Nos.267/5 and 268/3. We verified the 4(1) Notification, 5-A enquiry proceedings and Sec.6 Declaration. As rightly pointed out, in the Notification and Declaration, it is stated that Thiruvenkatasamy is the owner of the lands in S. Nos.267/5 and 268/3. We have already referred to the written objection filed by the petitioner, who is none else than the daughter of the said Thiruvenkatasamy, to the effect that her father died on 6.3.1987. In such circumstances, it is but proper on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to rectify the mistake in all the proceedings including 4(1) Notification. The Notification issued in the name of dead person is a nullity and the proceedings cannot be continued based on the said Notification." 7. In Leelavathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (3) CTC 490 , at Paragraph No.16, this Court held as follows: "16. It is true, as laid down by the Supreme Court that when the factum of death of the person was not recorded in the revenue records or the same was not informed to the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be expected to make roving enquiry about the ownership of the property, but on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that the factum of death of the original owner has been informed by the daughter and in spite of the same the respondents have not taken any steps to rectify the mistake. In those circumstances, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Savithiri Ammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (3) MLJ 389 , will squarely apply to the facts of the case." 8. Following the said Judgments, the impugned notification and the subsequent Government Order are set aside, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. However, it is open to the authority concerned to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs.