V. Amsam v. V. Amsam

Chidambaranar District dated 31.3.1997 and to quash thesame. - - - - -Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. Government Pleader andMr. P. Gurunathan, Government Advocate(for Appellants in W.A. Nos.161 and 162 of 2006)Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Srinivasan(for Appellant in W.A. No.369 of 2006)Mr. J. Antony Jesus(for Respondents in W.A. Nos.161 and 162 of 2006)Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. Government Pleader andMr. P. Gurunathan, Government Advocate(for Respondents in W.A. No.369 of 2006)- - - - -J U D G M E N TPrabha Sridevan, J.All these three writ appeals have been preferred against theorder dated 29.7.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Courtin Writ Petition Nos.5470 and 5471 of 1998, which had come to befiled challenging the initiation of the land acquisition proceedingsand the notification issued therefor under Section 4(1) of the TamilNadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 ('Act'in short). The State has filed Writ Appeal Nos.161 and 162 of 2006insofar as that order was in favour of the writ petitioners and WritPetition No.369 of 2006 has been filed by the land owner againstthat portion of the order whereby the learned single Judge did notextend the benefit of his order to the land standing in the name ofSellathaiammal. 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 5.30.0 hectares; Survey No.80/1, to an extent of0.87.5 hectares and Survey No.480/2, to an extent of 0.35.0 hectaresin Pandavarmangalam Village. She is the owner of the land in SurveyNo.478 in the very same village and the adjoining land belongs toher husband, in which an industry called Bharath Chemical Industrieshas been set up. A residential quarters for the employees of thisindustry has been constructed in Survey No.479/1. There is atamarind thope in the land and the other lands have been used foragricultural, horticultural and dairy purposes. A notice underSection 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 3(i) of the Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 ('Rules'in short) dated 15.12.1996 was served on the petitioner on 1.1.1997in respect of the lands under Survey Nos.479/1, 479/2, 481, 482/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 482/2. It indicated that the enquiry would be held on10.1.1997. The petitioner filed an application dated 4.1.1997requesting sufficient time to file her objections and prayed fortime till 1.2.1997. A detailed objection dated 18.1.1997 was sentby the petitioner, which was received by the respondents on20.1.1997. Since no enquiry was conducted on 10.1.1997, thepetitioner was awaiting further communication. An additionalobjection was filed indicating that the Panchayat Union had grantedapproval for the purpose of putting up construction and the factoryhad been registered as a small scale industry. It was furtherindicated that the land in Survey No.479/2 did not belong to her andthat Survey No.481 belonged to her son. On 22.7.1997, she receiveda communication that the notification under Section 4(1) had beenpublished on 31.3.1997 and the petitioner was asked to appear for anenquiry on 22.8.1997. She once again submitted her objections on16.8.1997 stating that about 100 acres of poromboke lands wereavailable very near to the existing place where the Adi Dravidarswere residing, but no further communication was served. Accordingto her, the notice in Form-I under Rule 3(i) of the Rules requires15 days' time for filing of objections after service of notice andoral enquiry is required to be conducted only after an opportunityof filing of objections is given. But since the notice was servedon the petitioner on 1.1.1997 indicating that 10.1.1997 was the dateof enquiry, the condition relating to 15 days' time was not compliedwith. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the notice was not inaccordance with the rules. It is also her grievance that though shehad filed by her objections on 18.1.1997, which was received by theauthorities on 20.1.1997, there was no communication thereafter.According to her, the Special Tahsildar is supposed to hold theenquiry and submit the report to the District Collector. However,copy of such report was never served on the petitioner. It is alsoher case that though notice in respect of Survey Nos.479/1 and 479/2refers to the petitioner, she is not the owner of the land in SurveyNo.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 thepetitioner is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner andtherefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings must be quashed.He had also produced the certificate issued by the Post Master thatThiru. V. Parthiban, S/o. Vidyasekara Pandian, had not refused toreceive any letter addressed to him from 1.12.1996 to 12.9.1998. Inthis writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed stating that asper the revenue records, V. Amsam (petitioner in W.P. No.5470 of1998) was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos.479/1 and 2 and theV. Parthiban (petitioner in W.P. No.5471 of 1998) was the owner inrespect of the land in S.No.481 and that Sellathaiammal was theowner of the land in respect of S. Nos.481/1 and 482/2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 wereinformed to appear for an enquiry on 10.1.1997. The notice was sentby registered post. While Parthiban refused to receive the notice,Amsam was served with the notice and Sellathaiammal was reported tohave died. Amsam had sent an objection petition, which was receivedby the office on 8.1.1997. Neither the objectors nor any interestedperson appeared for the eqnuiry on 10.1.1997. The objections filedby the petitioners were received on 20.1.1997 and the objectionswere rejected. It was indicated that Survey No.479/2 was sold toone Kasinathan on 3.1.1997, but the notice had been served on1.1.1997. The notice in Form-I was sent to him on 13.1.1997. Itwas returned without being served and no objection was filed byKasinathan. One Ganesan had stated that the land in SurveyNos.481/1 and 482/2 belonged to a charity to be maintained bySellathaiammal, but no documentary evidence was produced at the timeof the enquiry. The enquiry showed that the lands were under theenjoyment of Vidyasekara Pandian, the husband of Amsam. His namewas also included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. Subsequently, the report was submitted by the SpecialTahsildar and the District Collector approved of the proposal foracquisition of the lands on 18.3.1997. The gazette publicationunder Section 4(1) of the Act was effected on 31.3.1997. The awardwas passed on 10.3.1998. Possession of the lands was taken on26.3.1998 and pattas had also been distributed. It was on the basisof this that the learned single Judge passed the order which ischallenged herein.5. As far as W.P. No.5470 of 1998 is concerned, it was found bythe learned single Judge that the counter affidavit indicated thatthe objections were overruled because the objections were routine innature. It was found that under the notice, the 15 days' time forfiling the objections was not given and therefore, the notice wasdefective in nature and though the objections were filed within 15days from the date of receipt of the notice and the notice itselfwas defective and inconsistent, the petitioner cannot be found faultwith merely because she had not followed the time stipulated underthe Act. As far as the land standing in the name of the dead personwas concerned, the learned single Judge rejected the challenge onthe ground that the petitioner had not indicated how she hadinherited the property and therefore, the notification was quashedinsofar as the land that was admittedly standing in the name ofAmsam. 6. Insofar as W.P. No.5471 of 1998 is concerned, the learnedsingle Judge did not accept the case of the Government that thenotice was refused to be received by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleaderappearing on behalf of the State submitted that the first objectionto the challenge ought to be rejected at the threshold on the groundthat the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no writ petitionshould be entertained after the award has been passed and therefore,the writ petitions were not maintainable. Even on merits, hesubmitted that this was a case where the rules were complied withfully and there was no violation of the rules. It would be apparentfrom the records that Parthiban had deliberately refused to receivethe notice and in the case of Amsam, her objections were considered,though the objections were received beyond the 15 days' time andthat would be borne our by records.8. Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing forthe land owners submitted that as far as Parthiban was concerned, itwas proved that he had not refused to receive any letter andtherefore, no notice was served on him. As far as Amsam wasconcerned, she had sent a letter on 4.1.1997 seeking time, becauseher husband was away and she needed him for preparing the objectionsand 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 hearingand the law also does not require that there should be a personalhearing and it is only after considering her objections that thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. As regardsSellathaiammal also, it is well settled that there can be noacquisition proceedings against a dead person. Therefore, it wassubmitted by the learned senior counsel that the State's appealshould be dismissed and the appeals preferred by the land ownersshould be allowed. 9. The following decisions were relied on. In A.I.R. 1989Madras 222 (FB) [P.C. Thanikavelu vs. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A.,Madras], where this Court held that though the Revenue has a duty tokeep their records up-to-date, there can be cases where the revenuerecords were not up-to-date and the person who is really interestedin the land may not receive the notice of enquiry and in thosecases, if it is brought to the notice of the District Collector thatthe interested person wants to object, the District Collector, as astatutory functionary, cannot decline to afford an opportunity tothe person. Though the lands are acquired under the theory ofeminent domain, the rule of law must govern and control theexecutive functions. In 2001 (3) C.T.C. 649 [G. Ramakrishna Naiduvs. District Collector], a learned single Judge of this Courtdeprecated the practice of casually and informally overrulingobjections. In 2006 (4) C.T.C. 609 [R. Pari vs. The SpecialTahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai], a Full Bench of thisCourt answered the reference as to whether it was necessary for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in thecontext of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar; was theowner entitled to a copy of the Special Tahsildar's report ; andshould the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealingwith the objections of the land owner as follows :-"The owner should be furnished with a copy of thereport / recommendation of the authorised officer.Thereafter, he should be given two weeks' time to makefurther representation, if any, before the DistrictCollector. It is not necessary for the District Collectorto give a further personal hearing or make any furtherenquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report wouldnot have the ipso facto effect of vitiating theproceedings and the question of prejudice to the landowner is required to be considered in each case dependingupon the facts and circumstances. The District Collectoris expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because thecommunication to the land owner does not Contain thereasons, the decision of the Collector is not ipso factovitiated and it would always open to the concernedauthority to prove before the Court, if such action of theCollector is challenged, that there has been applicationof mind and the reasons are available in the relevantrecords relating to such acquisition. The necessity torecord the reasons is applicable where the Collectorhimself makes the enquiry and also where the Collectortakes an appropriate decision on the basis of thereport/recommendation made by the authorised officer."10. In (2005 ) 7 S.C.C. 627 [Hindustan Petroleum CorporationLtd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai], the Supreme Court held that theenquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 andhearing of objections must be an effective one and not mereformality, and there must be proper application of mind regardingthe relevant factors in rejecting the irrelevant factors and alsothat the Act is an expropriatory piece of legislation and therefore,the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as itdeprives a person of his land without consent. In (2005) 13 S.C.C.477 [Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory], the SupremeCourt held that where a statute requires a particular act to be donein a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner aloneand quashed the notification impugned therein on the ground that itwas vague and not in accordance with law. In (2006) 3 M.L.J. 389[Savithiriammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu], a Division Bench of thisCourt held that when a notification is issued in the name of a deadperson, the proceedings cannot be sustained. In 2006 (4) C.T.C. 785 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ [Sharp Tools vs. The State of Tamil Nadu], a Full Bench of our Courtheld as follows :-"(I) Objections to the acquisition are to besubmitted by the persons interested in the lands within 30days from the date of publication of the Notification asprovided by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Act.(II) The 30 days' period is to be reckoned from thelast mode of publication as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act.(III) In all cases where objections are filed within30 days as provided under Section 5A(1); hearing theobjectors and Department/Company and further enquiry aremandatory.(IV) The Collector shall have to fix, the date ofhearing the objections. He has to give notice in Form-B tothe Objector as well as to the Department. The 'Departmentor Company may file a statement by way of answer to theobjections before the date fixed by the Collector. TheDepartment may also depute their Representative to attendthe enquiry.(V) If objections are not filed within the time, butthe person interested/land owner appears before theCollector pursuant to the Notice in Form-B and makes anyobjections orally, it is incumbent on the part of theCollector to hear the objector, however, conductingfurther enquiry is not obligatory but it is only adiscretion of the Collector. To put it clear, 'personalhearing' is mandatory and "further enquiry' isdiscretionary depending upon the submission of objectionswithin 30 days of the last mode of the publication.(VI) Rule 4(b) is mandatory and to be followedessentially. In terms of Rule 4{b), Form-B is only aNotice to the objectors and the Department to appear forthe hearing and it is not a notice for filing theobjections."11. In (2005) 3 C.T.C. 691 [S. Harshavardhan vs. State of TamilNadu], 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 [MunicipalCouncil, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig], held that after the awardis passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice or against any proceedings initiated thereunder. In 2000Writ L.R. 477 [Executive Engineer and Administrative officer,Coimbatore Housing Unit vs. Girija Janarthan & Others], a writpetition was filed questioning the acquisition proceedings after theaward was passed. It was argued that since the notification underSection 4(1) of the Act did not contain the name of the originalowners, the very initiation of acquisition proceedings is vitiatedand merely because the award was passed, the right to challenge theproceedings cannot be taken away. The Division Bench referred to(2008) 4 S.C.C. 695 [Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. vs. State ofRajasthan], where again the Supreme Court had held that a writpetition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, iffiled after possession is taken, is not maintainable. In that case,the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was dated 5.3.1991,the award was passed on 23.4.1994 and the writ petition was filed on30.11.1994. The Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by theState. In Tej Kaur's case (supra), the acquisition was under theCentral Act. The grounds raised therein were almost similar to theones raised here, viz. that there was no enquiry under Section 5-Aof the Act and that the appellants were not given personal hearing.In that case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act wasissued on 7.5.1991. The objections were filed by the land owners on13.6.1991. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on18.3.1992. The award was passed on 15.3.1994 and the writ petitionwas filed on 12.4.1994. The Supreme Court held as follows:-"6. It is true that Section 5-A inquiry is animportant stage in the acquisition proceedings and aperson who is aware of Section 4(1) notification can raiseobjection to the effect that his property is not requiredfor acquisition and he is also at liberty to raise thecontention that the property is not required for anypublic purpose. It is also true, that the objector mustalso be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard andany violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner of theproperty whose land is sought to be acquired. In theinstant case, however, it is pertinent to note that theCollector had, in fact, conducted the Section 5-A inquiry,though there is no material on record to show that theappellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 were heard inperson. The facts and circumstances of Civil Appeal No. 66of 1998 clearly show that the objection raised by theappellants was considered and partly allowed by theCollector. About eight acres of land was sought to beacquired from the appellants as per the notification, butout of that, an extent of six acres was excluded fromacquisition and only one-and-a-half acres of land was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ actually acquired by the authorities. This would clearlyshow that the objection filed by the appellants wasconsidered by the Collector. Moreover, Section 6declaration was made on 18-3-1992 and the award was passedon 15-3-1994. The appellants filed the writ petition onlyon 12-4-1994. In spite of the Section 6 declaration havingbeen made on 18-3-1992, the appellants allowed theacquisition proceedings to go on until the award waspassed. This fact clearly indicates that the appellantsdid not have a genuine grievance against Section 5-Ainquiry held by the Collector. Therefore, we are notinclined to interfere with the judgment on the grounds nowadvanced by the appellants."Therefore, even on the preliminary ground that the award had come tobe be passed before the filing of the writ petitions and since theconsistent view of the Supreme Court appears to be that after theaward is passed, there can be no challenge to the acquisitionproceedings, we will have to allow the appeals filed by the Stateand dismiss the one filed by the land owner. But we will alsoexamine the facts and go through the records.12. The notice in Form-I issued under Rule 3(i) of the Rules toAmsam shows that the land owner has to file the objections within 15days from the date of issuance of the notice. There is a slightvariance in the meaning of the notice as found in the Tamil versionand as found in the English version. In the Tamil version, thewords used are "mwptpg;g[ bfhLf;fg;gl;l njjpapypUe;J", "the date of issueof notice", whereas in the English version, the words are "afterservice of this notice". This notice calls upon the land owner tobe present at 11 a.m. on 10.1.1997. This was signed on 11.12.1996and sent by post on 31.12.1996. 13. In the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, it is statedthat Form-III notice was sent on 11.12.1996 by registered post;Amsam had received it on 1.1.1997, but Parthiban had refused toreceive it, "...th';f kWj;j fhuzj;jpdhy;"; and that Tmt.Sellathaiammal had died and so, the notice could not be served onher. It is stated that on 10.1.1997, the enquiry that was to haveheld did not take place, since no objections were received by then.On 8.1.1997, the letter was received from Amsam that since herhusband had gone out of town, she wanted time till 1.2.1997 forgiving her objections. On 20.1.1997, they received her objections,which stated that there are four residential buildings in SurveyNo.479/1 and that she is getting an annual income of Rs.5,000/- fromthe tamarind trees and the rest of the land is used as a grazingfield for her dairy farm and that there are borewells in two places https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and that she intends to plant herbal trees and that the propertiesin 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 SurveyNo.479/1 are acquired, then her poultry will suffer and that she hadacquired these lands, which were thorny bushes earlier, by spendingRs.40,000/- and that she had sold the property in Survey No.479/2 toIrulandi's son Kasinathan and that this land is five kilometers fromPandavarmanagalam Village and that there are many lands near thevillage and therefore, those lands should be acquired. 14. On the basis of these objections, the officer had againgone to the land in question. It is recorded that the buildingsmentioned in Survey No.479/1 did not come within the extent which issought to be acquired and that for the trees and the acquired land,compensation can be given separately. As regards the use of thelands as grazing field, the officer found that this is false andthat the land is a stony ground and that it would have been severalyears since there had been any agriculture in this land. It is alsostated that the objection that the borewells are required for thefruit orchards and that the poultry will be affected are all groundswhich cannot be accepted in a land acquisition proceedings and it ismerely to stall the proceedings. As regards Survey No.479/2, it wasfound that after the proceedings commenced on 23.1.1997, a sale deedhas been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kovilpattiin favour of one Kasinathan. Therefore, this Kasinthan was alsogiven a notice on 13.2.1997, which was returned 'Unserved'. Thus,the Tahsildar recommends that for that land, Kasinathan can be giventhe compensation. As regards the property standing in the name ofSellathaiammal, one Ganesan had given an application that there wasa Will executed by Sellathaiammal by which the property was given toa 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 werestill in the management of Vidyasekara Pandian, the husband ofAmsam. The officer records that no objection was received fromParthiban. Thereafter, the notice sent under Section 4(2) of theAct was received by all the parties. 15. The learned senior counsel mainly stressed the fact thatsince the formalities and the procedure required by law had not beencomplied with, the entire acquisition proceedings would be a nullityand the fact that an award had been passed will not cure the defectand therefore, even if the writ petition had been filed subsequentto the award, the writ petition shall not be dismissed on thepreliminary ground that after an award, there can be no challenge tothe acquisition proceedings. However, we have already referred to(2008) 4 S.C.C. 695 (supra) where again the facts showed that therewas no evidence that the land owner was heard in person or that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Collector had in fact conducted the enquiry under Section 5-A of theCentral Act. But however, the Supreme Court, in that case, notedthat out of the entire eight acres of land, six acres were excludedfrom acquisition and only 1½ acres had been acquired by theauthorities. Therefore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion thatthe objection filed by the land owners had been considered by theCollector and when the writ petition was filed on 12.4.1994, onemonth after the award, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashedand was allowed to stand. But we have also satisfied ourselves asto the facts and what is seen in the records in order to see if thenotice was served and whether the objections were heard and whetherthe objections were considered. Even the Full Bench in K. Pari'scase had said that mere non-furnishing of report would not ipsofacto result in the proceedings being vitiated and again the non-existence of reasons in the communication to the land owner willalso not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and it would be thequestion of prejudice to the land owner which has to be consideredand if the relevant records show application of mind and reasons areavailable therein, the authorities may prove the same before theCourt. 16. In the present case, V. Amsam, the petitioner in W.P.No.5470 of 1998, was served with the notice on 1.1.1997. Accordingto the rules, she ought to have been given 15 clear days' time toreply. Though the notice under Section 4(2) of the Act is dated15.12.1996, it appears to have been posted later, which is theresult why she received it only on 1.1.1997. The enquiry was slatedon 10.1.1997, but it was not conducted on 10.1.1997, since Amsam hadasked for time to file her objections. The objections were receivedby the respondents on 20.1.1997. We have gone through theobjections and we find that there is no request in the objectionsfor granting her personal hearing. We also find in the records thatthe officer had gone to the lands himself, had examined the landssought to be acquired in the context of each of the objectionsraised by her and had given reasons for rejecting them. Though inthe counter affidavit, it is stated that the objections are routinein nature, that is not how the authority has dealt with theobjections. We have already referred to the relevant records whichshows that her objections regarding fruit orchards and theobjections regarding her poultry suffering are all without merit.Therefore, the authority has considered each of her objections andhas only thereafter rejected it and has proceed to pass the award on10.3.1998. The writ petitions were filed only on 29.3.1998, thoughAmsam and Parthiban knew about the proceedings at least by the earlyhalf of 1997. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are not inclinedto accept the challenge made by Amsam with regard to the acquisitionproceedings not merely on the ground that the writ petition had beenfiled after the award was passed, but also for the following https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasons. The enquiry was not held on 10.1.1997, the authorities haddeferred it until they received the objections. Amsam did not askfor personal hearing. The officer had gone to the lands in questionnot once but twice to see if the objections were sustainable. Theauthority has satisfied the statutory requirements by applying hismind to each of the objections and dealing with the sameaccordingly.17. As regards V. Parthiban, petitioner in W.P. No.5471 of1998, his case is that he did not refuse to receive the notice. Itis relevant to note that Parthiban is the son of Amsam. Parthibanand Amsam live at the same address. The first letter written byAmsam seeking time is to the effect that since her husband is out oftown, she needs his help to give a suitable reply to the notice.The entire family lived together. It is true that the returnedcover is not found in the file. But, there are contemporaneousrecords in the form of the report of the Special Tahsildar whichshows that Parthiban had refused to receive the cover, "th';fkWj;jjhy;" are the words used. The petitioner, of course, relies ona certificate issued by the postal authorities that no cover wasrefused to be received by Parthian during the relevant period. Inthe first place, whoever signed that certificate had not supportedit by giving evidence or giving a supporting affidavit. Secondly,while postal authorities can testify to the fact that a particularletter has been served on a particular address, as far as return ofa cover is concerned, it may be for different reasons like 'no suchaddressee' or 'addressee left' or 'addressee refused to receive'.We are not sure to what extent we can rely on this certificate givenlong after to the effect that no letter was refused to be receivedby Parthiban. 18. On the other hand, we are more inclined to accept thecontemporaneous record in the files maintained by the respondentswhich we have no reason to suspect as fabricated, and thecontemporaneous records show that Parthiban had refused to receivethe letter. It is to be noted that all the three letters, oneaddressed to Amsam, the other addressed to Parthiban and anotheraddressed to Sellathaiammal, have all been sent by registered postto the same address, and there is no reason why the letter sent toParthiban alone should not have been served on him. As regards theletter sent to Sellathaiammal it had been returned for the correctreason, viz. Sellathaiammal had died. Therefore, we do not acceptthe case of the petitioner Parthiban had that refused to receive thenotice. On the other hand, we are inclined to accept veracity ofthe files and the stand of the Government that Parthiban had refusedto receive the notice. Therefore, the notice sent under Section 4(2) of the Act is deemed to have been served on Parthiban and he hadchosen not to give his objections. Instead, he had chosen to write https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a letter in May, 1997 as though he had not received the notice underSection 4(2) of the Act and that he was given to understand thatthere are proceedings for acquisition. Even at this stage, he couldhave given his objections, or he could have challenged theproceedings. He did not choose to do so and has come up with thewrit petition after the award came to be passed. In thesecircumstances, we are inclined to accept the stand of the Governmentthat the procedure stipulated and all the formalities prescribedhave been complied with and therefore, there can be no validchallenge 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) isin the name of her son. Though the authorities knew when theregistered letter was returned that Sellathaiammal had died, therewas time enough for them to rectify the mistake and issue the noticeunder Section 4(2) to the legal heirs of Sellathaiammal. It is truethat they had set up a will which, according to the State, they werenot able to prove. But, they knew that the husband of Amsam, viz.Vidyasekara Pandian, was the son of Sellathaiammal. Therefore, heis one of the heirs under the Hindu Law. Care should have beentaken so that the notice was issued on the legal heirs of the deadowner. In (2006) 3 M.L.J. 389 (supra), a Division Bench of thisCourt has held that when a notification is issued in the name of adead person, the proceedings cannot be sustained. In this casealone, though the challenge is made after the award is passed, sincethe proceedings against a dead person is void ab initio, we cannotsustain the acquisition proceedings merely on the ground that theaward has been passed.20. For all these reasons, Writ Appeal Nos.161 and 162 of 2006filed by the State are allowed and Writ Appeal No.369 of 2006 filedby the land owner is also allowed. It is open to the authoritiesconcerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law in respect of thelands that stood in the name of Sellathaiammal, if they requirethose lands for the objects set down in the Act. There shall be noorder 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.161and 162 of 2006 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The District Collector of Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.2.The Special Tahsildar (LA),Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes,Kovilpatti.+3cc to Mr.J.Antony Jesus, Advocate Sr 36311+1cc to Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate Sr 36227LA(CO)km/27.8.W.As.161, 162 and 369 of 2006