(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of declaration, to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the lands of 1.68 acres comprised in S.F.No.135/1 situated at Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore, belonging to the petitioners as lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013"(Act 30 / 2013).)

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The first petitioner is the wife of the Late R. Chinnasamy and the second and third petitioners are the sons of the deceased R.Chinnasamy. The petitioners submit that the land admeasuring 1.68 acre comprised in Survey No.135/1, situated at Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore District was owned by the said R.Chinnasamy. The said Chinnasamy died intestate on 15.07.2006, leaving behind the petitioners as his only legal-heirs to succeed his property. Till his life time, the Late R.Chinnasamy was in possession and enjoyment of the property and thereafter, the petitioners are in possession of the property. The petitioners further submit that the first respondent in the year 1982 initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire approximately an extent of 548 acres of land situated in Veerakeralam Village under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 herein after called "the Old Act" for the purpose of Housing Scheme sponsored by the respondents 2 and 3. An extent of 1.68 acres of land owned by the said Chinnasamy was also subjected to the said land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners further submit that with respect to the subject land a notification in G.O.Ms.No.1178 came to be issued on 29.12.1981 under Section 4(1) of the Old Act and a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.91, on 08.02.1984 by the first respondent. The said acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an award in Award No.5/86, dated 23.09.1986. Aggrieved by the said acquisition proceedings, the said R.Chinnasamy (Lat) challenged the said proceedings by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.4721 of 1992, before this Court and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 24.07.2000.

2. The petitioners submit that out of the total extent of 548 acres of land sought to be acquired by the respondents, the respondents 2 and 3, so far, except constructing 200 houses in the year 1990 in that locality did not proceed further with the implementation of any housing schemes in the lands covered under the Acquisition Proceedings as mentioned above in that area. In fact, after 1990, there is not even a single development activity carried out by the respondents 2 and 3 or by the first respondent in the said area. The first respondent herein had in fact excluded large extent of lands from the above said acquisition proceedings. The respondents 2 and 3 herein had dropped the entire housing schemes in that area for the reason that various associations such as Agricultural and House Owners Associations as well as individuals staged a large scale and continuous protest against the acquisition proceedings in that area.

3. The petitioners further submit that apart from that with respect to several lands situated at Veerakeralam Village, this Court was pleased to quash various acquisition proceedings at the instance of many land owners. The respondents did not take further steps to acquire those lands for any housing schemes as the second respondent had already dropped the entire Housing Schemes at Veerakeralam Village. Thus, with regard to entire extent of lands covered by several acquisition notifications but for a small extent, the acquisition proceedings either came to be quashed, or withdrawn or excluded and also in some cases re-conveyed to the erstwhile land owners by exercising their powers under the Old Act. The petitioners further submit that in those circumstances on 15.10.2012, the petitioners have made a representation to the first respondent seeking to exclude their lands or to reconvey the lands by exercising the powers under the Old Act. Since the first respondent failed to dispose the said representation, the petitioners have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2144 of 2013, before this Court, seeking a direction to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners and to exclude or reconvey the land to the petitioners. By order dated 29.01.2013, this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition, thereby directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners, within a period of 8 weeks.

4. The petitioners further submit that the first respondent has without applying their mind to factual aspects and materials, mechanically rejected the request of the petitioners in its order dated 01.04.2013. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed a writ petition in W.P.Sr.No.65073 of 2013, before this Court and the same is yet to be numbered.

5. The petitioners further submit that though the award came to be passed in the year 1986 i.e., on 23.09.1986 in award No.5/86, the fourth respondent did not take any steps to take possession of the lands either from the said Chinnasamy or from the petitioners as contemplated under Section 16 of the Old Act. The subject land is lying vacant till date. Further, neither the third petitioners father nor they were served with any sort of notice under Section 12(2) of the Old Act so as to enable them to know about the passing of the award and to receive the compensation amount, payable to the petitioners. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know and believed the same to be true but, so far, the fourth respondent did not even deposit the compensation amount before the competent civil Court as required under the Old Act.

6. The petitioners further submit that the fourth respondent herein never took possession of the lands either from the said Chinnasamy or from the petitioners under the Old Act. When the petitioners sought for information under Right to Information Act 2005, regarding taking of possession, the Public Information Officer attached to the office of the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 12.11.2013, had informed that there are no records for taking possession of the land from the petitioners by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Public Information Officer while replying a question for handing over of possession, had furnished a transfer certificate dated 27.10.1989. From that certificate, it is seen that the Tahsildar (North), Coimbatore handed over possession of the lands to the Surveyor in the office of the third respondent. On perusal of that certificate and the reply given under RTI, it is crystal clear that there are no records to show that the possession of the lands were taken under Section 16 of the Old Act by the fourth respondent either from the said Chinnasamy or from the petitioners. Further, the Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) is not the authority authorized by the first respondent, under the Old Act to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 3(c) of the Old Act.

7. The petitioners additionally added that in such circumstances, now, the Government of India brought in new Land Acquisition Act, in the place of "Old Act", viz., the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 / 2013), now onwards called the "New Act" and the same came into effect from 01.01.2014. As per the New Act, if the physical possession of the lands are not taken or the compensation is not paid, in respect of the proceedings initiated under the Old Act, the entire proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the New Act.

8. In the language of Section 24, the Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

(a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply: or

(b) Where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), in case of Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid in the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provision of this Act.

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

Hence, in view of the New Act, the land owners are getting absolute right over the property."

9. The petitioners further submit that in the absence of any records to prove the fact that the physical possession of the lands were taken by the fourth respondent from the petitioners or from the said Chinnasamy under the Old Act and the compensation was paid, as per Section 24(2) of the New Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed. Hence, the respondents are barred from proceeding further under the Old Act. The petitioners further submit that though the possession of the lands were not taken by the fourth respondent either from his father or from the petitioners under the Old Act, in the revenue records, the second respondents name is entered in respect of the subject property in view of the initiation of the Acquisition proceedings and passing of the award under the Old Act. Moreover, the respondents 2 and 3 are also maintaining that they are the owners of the property in view of the passing of the award and the entries in the revenue record. Further, the fourth respondent in his letter dated 12.11.2013, replied that they have handed over the possession of the property to the third respondent. Though, the New Act gives an absolute right to maintain the possession and title of the property for the reasons stated above in the foregoing paragraphs, due to the entry in the records as well as the stand of the respondents 2 and 3 as stated above, a cloud is created regarding the subject property. Thus, it necessitated the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

10. The petitioners further submit that in view of fact that the possession of the subject lands are not taken by the respondents 3 and 4 as contemplated under Section 16 of the Old Act in accordance with law and the petitioners are in physical possession of the subject lands, the petitioners are entitled to seek for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the New Act. Hence, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of lands of 1.68 acres comprised in S.F.No.135/1 situated at Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore, belonging to the petitioners, as lapsed in view of the "Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013"(Act 30 / 2013).

11. The highly competent Senior Counsel, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy appearing for the petitioners submits that the first respondent had approved the proposal for acquiring the petitioners land in the year 1981, for which, G.O. has been issued. Subsequently, gazette notification was given. The respondent had not served 4(1) notification on the writ petitioners. Further, the said land has been classified as cultivable dry land. Till now, the petitioners have been cultivating the said land without interference of the respondents. The respondents have neither paid the compensation amount for the said land nor was the possession taken by them. As such, the writ petitioners are entitled to get relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013, as the compensation has not been paid and possession had not been taken from the petitioners. The Village Administrative Officer has also given statement before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the petitioners are the owner of the property and they are continuously cultivating the same. Further, they depend upon the income derived from the land.

12. The very competent Senior counsel, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy further submits that the petitioners have received information from the respondents under Right to Information Act, which reveals that the compensation amount, so far, has neither been paid to the petitioners nor deposited before the civil Court. Further, it discloses that the possession was not taken by the respondents. As such, Section 24(2) of the New Act is squarely applicable to the instant case for getting remedy. The acquisition proceedings have become lapsed as per the New Act. The learned Senior Counsel has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

(i) PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN v. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183 [LQ/SC/2014/83]

"A. Land Acquisition and Requisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Ss.24(1) & (2) - Lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where compensation has not been paid to landowners and award was made 5 years or more prior to commencement of 2013 Act - Expression "compensation has not been paid" occurring in S.24(2) "paid" - Import of -Deposit of compensation amount in Government treasury, held not enough - Held, for purpose of S.24(2) compensation shall be regarded as "paid" if compensation is actually tendered to landowners / interested persons, or, is offered to interested persons and on their refusal to accept the same such compensation is deposited in Court.

- Expression "paid" used in S.24(2) includes deposit of compensation in Court, and cannot be limited to mean "offered" or "tendered" to landowners / persons interested, and neither can receipt of compensation by landowners/persons interested be inferred as the only meaning thereof - If literal construction is given to expression "paid", then it would amount to ignoring the procedure, made and manner of deposit of compensation in Court as provided in S.31(2) of 1894 Act, when landowners/interested persons refuse to accept compensation.

- In instant case, amount of compensation was deposited in Government treasury on 31.01.2008 which is not equivalent to "compensation paid to/persons interested" and award had been made more landowners than 5 years previously - Thus, subject land acquisition proceedings had lapsed."

(ii) Raghbir Singh Sherawat v. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 792 [LQ/SC/2011/1495]

"B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4(1), 6(1), 11 and 16 - Vesting of acquired land in Government - Taking of possession - Mode of - Principles reiterated - Actual possession not symbolic / possession on paper - Land with standing crops - Revenue record showing possession taken and delivery of land on which there were standing crops - Inference of "actual possession" in absence of notice to landowners, whether can arise - Held, possession of acquired land had not been taken - As crops were standing on several parcels of land including appellants land, possession could not have been taken without giving notice to landowners - State has not produced any other evidence to show that actual possession of land on which crops were standing had been taken after giving notice to appellant or that he was present at the site when possession of acquired land was delivered - Hence, record prepared by Revenue Authorities showing delivery of possession of acquired land to HSIIDC has no legal sanctity.

23. The respondents have not produced any other evidence to show that actual possession of the land, on which crop was standing, had been taken after giving notice to the appellant or that he was present at the site when possession of the acquired land was delivered to the Senior Manager of HSIIDC. Indeed, it is not even the case of the respondents that any independent witness was present at the time of taking possession of the acquired land."

(iii) PATASI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 503 [LQ/SC/2012/714]

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4, 6 and 16 - Possession of acquired land - Burden of proof - Absence of any evidence to show that actual or even symbolic possession of appellants land and house constructed over it was taken by competent authority between 09.12.2009 i.e., date on which award was passed and 20.01.2010 i.e., date on which writ petition was filed, and the same was handed over to HUDA - Hence, impugned judgment dismissing appellants petition solely on ground that it was filed after passing of award, unsustainable - Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Maintainability of Final orders.

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4 and 6 - Challenge to acquisition on ground of colourable exercise of power - Evidence showing that though notifications issued under Ss.4 and 6 recited that land was acquired for public purpose, but real object of acquisition was to benefit coloniser R-6 who wanted to develop the area into residential colony - Moreover, appellants land was surrounded by land R-6 and earlier also land acquired for same public purpose was transferred to R-6 -Hence, acquisition of appellants land was vitiated due to colourable exercise of power - Acquisition quashed."

13. Further, the very competent Senior Counsel, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy has produced adangal extracts in respect of the petitioners lands which had been issued on 11.04.2014 by the Village Administrative officer of Vellakinaru Village. From the extract, it is seen that the petitioners are cultivating maize (Cholam). As such, it has been clearly proved through the competent revenue authority, who is maintaining the revenue records, that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the subject land, which is in dispute.

14. The very competent Special Government Pleader, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, appearing for the respondents 1, 4 and 5 submits that the first respondent issued G.O. for acquiring the lands of the petitioners and others for implementing the "Housing Scheme". Following the G.O., notification was given in the Government gazette as well as two tamil dailies. Thereafter, 5-A enquiry was conducted, in which, the landowners had participated and their statements were recorded. Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was published. The compensation amount had been properly assessed and remitted in the concerned Court. Thereafter, the Housing Board has taken further process for implementing the said Housing Scheme.

15. The highly competent counsel, Mr.R.V.Babu, appearing for the second and third respondents submits that the 4(1) notification was published as per G.O. issued by the first respondent in the Government gazette as well as two Tamil dailies. Subsequently, 5-A enquiry was conducted. In the said enquiry, the petitioners have given statement stating that they have no objection in the acquirement of their lands. Further, the compensation amount had been properly assessed and the same was awarded. Thereafter, declaration had been published under Section 6 of the Act. Further, the notice had been served under Section 12(2) of the Old Act. Now, the second and third respondents are taking speedy action to develop the said land for Housing Scheme. Hence, a comprehensive lay-out plan had been prepared for an extent of 548 acres including the petitioners lands. Now, the said lay-out plan is under process with the Town and Country Planning Department for approval. At this, stage, the petitioners prayer is not maintainable.

16. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:-

(i) The respondents had given Section 4(1) notification in the Government gazette on 29.12.1981 for acquiring the petitioners and others lands in Vellaikinaru Village in Coimbatore District for the implementation of the Housing Scheme under Housing Scheme. Subsequently, the said notification was published in the newspaper also. Further, it was contended that the respondents have followed all legal formalities and acquired the said land and also passed an award in the year 1986.But, as of now the petitioners are in physical possession and in enjoyment of the same by way of cultivation. The same was proved after production of adangal certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer stating that the petitioners are in occupation of the said land.

(ii) The respondents had proposed the Housing Scheme for acquiring the petitioners land on 29.12.1981, for which, a Government Order had been passed in G.O.Ms.No.1178, (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 29.12.1981. As such, as on date, more than three decades have passed but the housing scheme has not been implemented and as such, there is a colossal delay for implementing the said housing scheme. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the said petitioners lands are absolutely not necessary as initially mentioned by the first respondent, viz., the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai.

(iii) As per the Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013, the writ petitioners are entitled to receive relief since they are in physical possession and actively pursuing land cultivation without interference, from the respondents. Further, there is no documentary proof to show that the compensation amount had been paid to the writ petitioners.

(iv) The Assistant Revenue Officer handed over possession of the land to the Surveyor, who is attached to the Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Unit, Coimbatore, on 27.10.1989. But, on the strength of the said transfer certificate, it is observed that the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore, had not occupied the said acquired land. Therefore, the purpose for which the lands were acquired for housing scheme had been rendered redundant.

(v) The Village Administrative Officer had given a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the petitioners are depending upon the revenue obtained from the cultivated land and in this arrangement for cultivation one cannot obtain a transference unlike a housing scheme, where a site can be found elsewhere. As such, the original proposal of the respondents, viz., implementation of housing scheme, will not be affected, if implemented elsewhere from the present site. Though the Assistant Grade Revenue Officers transfer certificate dated 27.10.1989 reveals that the possession of the acquired land property has been handed over to the Surveyor who is attached to the third respondent office, the said certificate is nothing but a self serving document and as such, the acquisition proceedings of the respondents of the petitioners lands are unfit for operation and hence, this Court declares that the respondents acquisition proceeding has lapsed.

(vi) This Courts further view is that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents for implementing the housing Scheme after acquiring the petitioners land. The notification for acquiring the said land had been given in the year 1981, but as now, the said land is under the possession of the writ petitioners. Even after a lapse of more than three decades, the respondents have not attempted to implement the scheme. As such, the inadequate planning of the respondents in initiating the housing Scheme only shows that the scheme is neither important nor essential. Besides, there is an inordinate delay in putting into operation the said scheme, considering that the span of human life itself is limited. Further, it is evident that there is extensive administrative delay that had disturbed the petitioners enjoyment rights for more than three decades. Besides this, the land acquisition proceedings of the respondents is creating a mode of encumbrance over the said property.

17. On considering the facts and current position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the records produced by the respondents and this Courts view listed above as (i) to (vi), this Court allows the above writ petition and declares that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in lands of an extent of 1.68 acres comprised in S.F.No.135/1 situated at Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore, has lapsed in view of the "Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013"(Act 30 / 2013). Accordingly ordered. There is no order as to costs.