(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05. 02. 2002, made in W. P. No. 18843 of 1994, the writ petitioners have preferred the above Appeal. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as described before the learned single Judge.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the property comprised in S. No. 10 9/1, No. 13, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, originally belonged to their father late Arunachala Gounder. After the demise of their father, they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property by changing the patta in their name. They are the permanent residents of Coimbatore. Whileso, they came to know during the second week of October, 1994, from the neighbouring land owners about acquisition of their land by the respondents for implementation of a Housing Scheme.
(3.) MR. SRINATH Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, after taking us through the relevant materials and the impugned order of the learned Judge, has raised the following contentions. Inasmuch there has been no service of notice relating to Notification under Section 4 (1) and Declaration under Section-6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. He also contended that, in the absence of personal notice to the petitioners, the authorities must have correctly mentioned their names and address in the Gazette Notification. But, the Gazette Notification refers different names instead of correctly mentioning the names of the petitioners. He further contended that, inasmuch as the publication of Notification under Section 4 (1) in all three modes, viz. , Gazette, Paper and public notice, is mandatory, the publication in the Newspapers viz. , "namathu MGR" and "pirpagal", which have no circulation in the area where the land situates, cannot constitute a valid publication as provided in the Act.