JUDGMENT : K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the final order passed in the writ petition dated 29.03.2012 in W.P. (MD) No. 14854 of 2011. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. She challenged the notification issued by the first respondent, dated 08.04.2011 under Section 3(D)(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Writ Court, after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances in detail, dismissed the writ petition, however, by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 3-G of the said Act to determine her just compensation. The writ Court also observed that the petitioner would be treated as an interested person, so as to enable her to take part in the proceedings under Sections 3-G and 3-H of the said Act. Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition, the present appeal is filed. 3. Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated and culminated into the issuance of Section 3-D declaration cannot be sustained in the eye of law, since the entire acquisition proceedings was projected against the dead person namely, the original owner of the subject matter land by name Thangappan. He further submitted that when the appellant has purchased the property much earlier to the issuance of Section 3-A notice, the authorities ought to have conducted the proceedings by showing the petitioner/appellant alone as the owner of the property and not against the dead person namely, the said Thangappan, by showing him as the owner. It is his contention that the writ appellant purchased the property on 03.11.2008 from the legal heirs of the said Thangappan, whereas Section 3-A notice was issued on 12.04.2010 and published in the newspaper on 10.06.2010. He further contended that though the writ appellant gave objection and the authorities have also conducted an enquiry based on such objection, the first respondent has erroneously issued Section 3-D declaration only in the name of the dead person namely, the said Thangappan. On merits of the objections, it is contended that the petitioner/appellant wanted to put up a hospital in the subject matter property and therefore, the authorities failed to consider the objections in a proper and perspective manner. On merits of the objections, it is contended that the petitioner/appellant wanted to put up a hospital in the subject matter property and therefore, the authorities failed to consider the objections in a proper and perspective manner. Thus, it is the contention of the appellant that the learned Judge failed to consider all these aspects and erroneously dismissed the writ petition. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Senthilvelan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 and Mr. R. Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, contended that in the absence of mutation of revenue records, the authorities cannot be found fault with in showing the name of the original owner in the impugned notification issued under Section 3-D of the Act. They further contended that on receiving the objections from the petitioner/appellant, she has been given adequate opportunity of hearing and after conducting due enquiry only, her objection was rejected. They further contended that the subject matter land along with larger extent of other lands were acquired for the purpose of forming National Highways No. 47B and therefore, the petitioner's land alone cannot be singled out as it would not be feasible at all and other hand it would result in spoiling the entire project. They also submitted that in respect of the lands acquired, award has also been passed already. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. The appellant is aggrieved against the acquisition of a piece of land situated at Survey No. 500/1 measuring an extent of 7100 sq. meter. The main objection raised by the writ petitioner is that the authorities proceeded to acquire the land by issuing the notification under Section 3-D of the said Act, in the name of the dead person, who admittedly, owned the subject matter land. There is no dispute to the fact that even though the appellant purchased the subject matter property by way of registered sale deed under document No. 1695/2008, on 03.11.2008, from the legal heirs of the said Thangappan, the revenue records continue to carry the name of the said Thangappan as the owner of the said property all along. There is no dispute to the fact that even though the appellant purchased the subject matter property by way of registered sale deed under document No. 1695/2008, on 03.11.2008, from the legal heirs of the said Thangappan, the revenue records continue to carry the name of the said Thangappan as the owner of the said property all along. The very fact that the appellant had purchased the property from the legal heirs of Thangappan would show that even on the date of her purchase, namely 03.11.2008, the said Thangappan was no more. However, it is seen that neither the legal heirs of the said Thangappan nor the petitioner/appellant after her purchase, had taken any steps to mutate the revenue records. On the other hand, the fact remains that the name of said Thangappan was allowed to remain in the revenue records without any mutation. Under such circumstances, the authorities cannot be found fault with in issuing Section 3-D declaration in the name of the person, who is shown as the owner of the property in the revenue records. Even otherwise, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was also given sufficient opportunity of hearing, based on her objection raised in pursuant to Section 3(A)(1) notification, before issuing the declaration. Thus, it is evident that only after conducting due enquiry and hearing the appellant, the authorities rejected her objection and issued the 3-D declaration. 7. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contented that atleast at this stage, the authorities should have realised that the appellant has become the owner of the property and consequently, should have issued the 3-D declaration in her name. But a careful perusal of the objection dated 10.11.2010, given by the appellant before the authorities would show that she has not whispered any where that the original owner Thangappan is no more and that she purchased the property from the legal heirs of the said Thangappan. Therefore, in the absence of those material details, the authorities cannot be found fault with in proceeding to issue the 3-D declaration in the name of Thangappan, as found in the revenue records. Therefore, in the absence of those material details, the authorities cannot be found fault with in proceeding to issue the 3-D declaration in the name of Thangappan, as found in the revenue records. Therefore, we find no substance in the contentions raised by the appellant that the impugned notification is vitiated, as the same was issued in the name of the dead person, more particularly, when the appellant was given due opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned proceedings. At this juncture, it is to be noted that unless the factum of death of a person, shown as owner of the land in the acquisition proceedings, is brought to the notice of the authorities, there cannot be any presumption that such authorities are aware of the said fact. They always go by the entries made in the revenue records. Any contra fact is to be pleaded and proved with material evidence. In the absence of such material details before the authorities, the "dead person" would continue to remain as a "person alive" in the eyes of such authorities. Hence, they can not be faulted. Nor such proceedings could be declared as vitiated. 8. While coming to the merits of the objections raised by the petitioner/appellant, it is to be noted at this juncture, that the purpose for which the acquisition was made, is for a big project of laying National Highway involving larger extent of lands and public interest. When other lands are already acquired and award was also passed, the request of the petitioner to leave the petitioner's land alone cannot be considered either as justifiable or as feasible. It is well settled that the larger public interest will prevail over the private interest like that of the appellant in respect of land acquisition proceedings initiated for public purpose. In any event, as the interest of the appellant is well protected by the writ Court by issuing a categorical direction to treat the petitioner as interested person, so as to enable her to take part in the proceedings under Section 3-G and 3-H of the Act and also by giving opportunity to the appellant to approach the competent authority for determination of the just compensation, we do not find that the petitioner's interest is prejudiced in any manner, as she is entitled to get just compensation at the hands of the competent authorities. The learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition after considering all these aspects and making all observations protecting the interest of the petitioner as stated supra. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the said order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, once again by reiterating that the petitioner, being the present owner of the land, is entitled to receive the just compensation, as per law. Further liberty is also granted to her to agitate the matter before the concerned Forum, if she is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the authorities. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.