9. In the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that after the final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued, one P.T.Devanathan, the son of the original land owner sent an objection on 19.02.1996. This objection was prior to the publication of the notice under Section 11(1) of the Act in the Government Gazette, which was published only on 03.04.1996. Thus, it is clear that, on the date when the notice under Section 11(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette, there was already an objection raised by the land owner's son. His objections were two-folds. Firstly, he has stated that the land was sold by his father in the year 1974 itself and secondly, it was stated that his father died on 20.04.1981. Along with the objections, photostat copies of sale deed executed in favour of Parathasarathy Naicker, the petitioner's vendor was enclosed. However, the authorities ignored his objections. The consequence of ignoring this objection has rendered the further proceedings initiated under the Act as illegal. Firstly, it has to be noted that the land owner died on 20.04.1981, that was much prior to the proceedings being initiated under the Act, since the notice under Section 7 (2) of the Act was issued only on 03.05.1993. Another crucial factor which has to be noted is that the original land owner sold the land in the year 1974 itself, that is much prior to coming into force of the Principal Act, which came into force only on 03.08.1976. Therefore, all subsequent proceedings made after notice under Section 7(1) of the Act, without considering the objections sent by the land owner's son dated 19.02.1996 are held to be bad in law. Further, though it is stated that the
