Judgment :- Common Judgment P. Sathasivam, J. Since all the appeals arise out of the Common Order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 08.03.2001, in W.P. Nos.13248 of 1991 etc., the same are being disposed of by the following Common Judgment. W.A. Nos.226 to 231 of 2005 and 425 of 2005 have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and W.A. Nos.254, 255, 456 and 457 of 2006 are by the Writ Petitioners. 2. Brief facts are as follows:- Thangam Colony Welfare Association and few others, aggrieved by the Notice issued under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act), directing them to surrender possession of the property specified within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, filed Writ Petitions before this Court. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the Writ Petitions. (A) Case of the Writ Petitioners:- According to the President of Thangam Colony Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as ( Association), who filed W.P. No.13248 of 1991, the Association was formed for the purpose of redressing the grievances of various persons who have purchased plots in the area known as Thangam Colony, which was under development. There is a road which runs east to west on the northern side in their colony. The members of the Association apart from others have purchased various plots in the said colony. Thangam Colony consists of 76 plots and about 60 houses and all of them are electrified. The colony had already been developed with street lights and roads. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had taken steps to acquire lands in Survey Nos.130, 131, 131/2 and 13 2/B1 etc., for implementation of “West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme”. The land owners, who had put up superstructures, as also the Association, consisting of 16 members, made representation to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, for exclusion of the land in their occupation from the acquisition proceedings. The original proposal was to form a 60 ft. width road. It is the further case of the Association that Tamil Nadu Housing Board considered their representation and decided to form only a 30 ft. road. Though no formal communication was received, the Association reliably learnt that respondents-1 and 2 decided to form a 30 feet road only and such decision was taken in 1989. width road. It is the further case of the Association that Tamil Nadu Housing Board considered their representation and decided to form only a 30 ft. road. Though no formal communication was received, the Association reliably learnt that respondents-1 and 2 decided to form a 30 feet road only and such decision was taken in 1989. It is also the case of the Association that while respondents-1 and 2 accepted the plea of the Association and others for formation of road with 30 ft. width, one Rajendran filed W.P. No.6394 or 1989, seeking to quash the Memo dated 03.03.1989 and forbear respondents-1 and 2 (the State Government and the Housing Board) from in any manner altering the width of the 6 0 ft. road into a 30 ft. road. In the said writ petition, without referring to the various representations made by the residents of Thangam Colony, the Housing Board filed a counter, stating that a 60 ft. road will be formed as and when the Revenue Department hands over the road site to the Board. By order dated 23.4.1991, the High Court grated time to the Housing Board till 30.09.1991 to form the 60 ft. road and the Government was directed to hand over the site to the Housing Board within a reasonable time enabling the Board to form the 60 ft. road within 30.09.1991. Neither the petitioner nor other residents or the school or church authorities were made parties to the said writ petition and they were not made aware of the proceedings. Only on receipt of the notice under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act for enforcing surrender of possession of the land belonging to the members of the Association as also other residents, they came to know that a portion of the land in their occupation is urgently required for formation of 60 ft. road at Thangam Colony. The said notice is not valid in law as the entire acquisition proceedings had already been dropped and though an award was passed, the matter was not pursued and consequently, the respondents have no right to enforce surrender of possession after lapse of 24 years from the date of the award. road at Thangam Colony. The said notice is not valid in law as the entire acquisition proceedings had already been dropped and though an award was passed, the matter was not pursued and consequently, the respondents have no right to enforce surrender of possession after lapse of 24 years from the date of the award. B. Stand of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board:- Though Tamil Nadu Housing Board/2nd respondent in the Writ Petitions filed separate counter affidavit, for convenience and clarity, we refer the details furnished in the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.13248 of 1991. Certain lands in Villivakkam Village, formerly Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu M.G.R. District, and now in Purasawakkam-Perambur Taluk of Chennai District, forming part of larger component of private lands, were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition for public purpose, viz., formation of a housing scheme known as “West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme”. A total extent of 7.81 acres in S. Nos.132, 133/1, 131/2-B, 130/2, 131/1 and 131/2-A were notified under Section 4(1) of the Act and finally, awards were passed in Award Nos.25/66 dated 21.9.1966; 24/66 dated 21.09.1966 and 10/67 dated 2 9.04.1967. Within these lands, the area known as Thangam Colony, Anna Nagar, is situated. The representation of the Association to exclude their portion of the land from the acquisition proceedings was negatived and the Government directed he Collector of Madras to take possession of the lands and hand over the same to the Housing Board. Again, the Secretary of the Association sent petitions to the Government on 03.04.1970 and 22.07.1970. Regarding the road alignment passing through Thangam Colony, the Housing Board informed the Government that it would not be possible to change the road alignment, vide letter dated 21.08.1970. It is on the further representation of the Association, the Government, in their letter dated 02.02.1972, intimated that the lands that are not falling within the road portions may be excluded from acquisition subject to payment of development charges by members of the Association as fixed by the Housing Board; that the alignment of the road cannot be changed; and that suitable alternate sites to be given to the persons who are going to be displaced by the Board; and negatived the request for payment of compensation for the superstructure. On account of the said order, out of the total extent of 7.81 acres, an extent of 0.90 acres is to be retained for formation of 60’ width road. As per the Order of the Government dated 2.2 .1972, the Housing Board, on 30.9.1972, issued allotment orders for allotment of A.P. Plots at Anna Nagar itself at concessional rates as alternate accommodation to the persons to be displaced, falling within the alignment of 60’ width road, viz., 12 persons. Apart from the above factual details, it is stated that the master plan provided by the MMDA contemplated only a 60 feet road in its layout. Rule 19(i)B(iv) of Development Control Rules for Chennai area provided for 60 feet road. Roads having 1 K.M. length should have a minimum road width of 60 feet. The Anna Nagar layout formed by the TNHB was approved by the Government and the same provides for 60 feet width road. The length of this 60' width road is about 4 K.M. running east to west from Chintamani Supermarket to Anna Nagar West Extension and it is meant to be one of the primary connecting links for all the users and owners of the Anna Nagar Scheme to provide, inter alia, for bus transport, accessibility to schools, colleges, hospitals, companies, markets, temples, churches, mosques etc. Non-formation of intermediate stretch of 6th Avenue for about 800 sq. ft. passing through Thangam Colony from Plot No.1328 to 1560 causes accidents due to heavy traffic problems. It is absolutely necessary to acquire the small land portions from the petitioners so as to form 60 feet width road as per the approved layout and the intermediate stretch of 60 feet width road should be formed in the interest of the public. The land owners ignoring the issuance of 4(1) notification had purchased the lands under acquisition long after the notification. Further, as agreed by the Association of the land-owners, alternate plots for an extent of 1 4129 sq. ft. were given and those persons had taken the sale deeds for those Housing Board plots. In spite of this, the land owners did not hand over the possession of their piece of land for the formation of 60 feet road as agreed. The Housing Board has also filed identical counter affidavits in other writ petitions, highlighting their stand. 3. ft. were given and those persons had taken the sale deeds for those Housing Board plots. In spite of this, the land owners did not hand over the possession of their piece of land for the formation of 60 feet road as agreed. The Housing Board has also filed identical counter affidavits in other writ petitions, highlighting their stand. 3. Learned single Judge, by first order, dated 07.02.2001, after finding that it is for the authorities to decide the viability either to form a single 60 feet width road or two one way roads of 30 feet width, directed the Housing Board to submit their report and posted the matter on 15.02.2001 for further orders. 4. Pursuant to the said direction, the Secretary/Personnel Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, filed a Report, wherein, after pointing out that non-formation of 60 feet width road or the formation of two one way roads of 30 feet width will cause accidents and that if 6 0 feet road is not laid in the middle of the VI Avenue, the entire VI Avenue will be useless and cannot be put to use for public, the said Officer concluded that formation of 60 feet width road is mandatory and hence, the request of the petitioners for having 30 feet width road cannot be accepted. Based on the said report and after hearing the arguments on either side, the learned Judge, by order dated 08.03.2001, disposed of all the Writ Petitions. In the said order, the learned Judge concluded that as per the Report submitted, the formation of 60 feet width road is indispensable and directed the Housing Board and the Government to negotiate with the writ petitioners, who shall arrive at a settlement on compensation for the superstructures put up in their land and sought to be demolished for the purpose of formation of 60 feet road, and such settlement shall be arrived, settled and paid within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the said order without going into the technicalities as to the rights of the claimants. The learned Judge further directed that on receipt of such compensation as well as the alternate site, which are already provided or yet to be provided to the remaining parties, the petitioners shall surrender the possession to the Housing Board; and a 60 feet width road shall be formed accordingly as expeditiously as possible, and till then, the petitioners and the respondents shall maintain status quo. With the above directions, the learned Judge disposed of all the Writ Petitions. 5. Questioning the said directions as mentioned above, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed Writ Appeal Nos.226 to 231 of 2005 and 425 of 2005. During the course of hearing of the Writ Appeals, the Association and others, i.e., the Writ Petitioners, filed Writ Appeal Nos.254, 256, 456 & 457 of 2006, seeking certain directions / clarification of the very same order passed by the learned Judge. 6. Heard Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General for Tamil Nadu Housing Board; Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for appellants in W.A. Nos.254, 255, 456, 457/06 i.e., for some of the Writ Petitioners; Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader for State; Mr. M. Thomas Acquinas, Mr. Silambanan and Mr. S. Vijayaraghavan for others. 7. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, vehemently contended that inasmuch as all the writ petitioners (except two) are subsequent purchasers, the direction of the learned Judge in para No.6 of the Common Order to pay compensation for the superstructure put up by them in the lands in question cannot be sustained. According to him, though there is no legal right to provide alternate site to any one, in view of the decision of the Government, all of them were provided with alternate site at concessional rate, hence, there cannot be any further direction for payment of compensation for the superstructures as a condition for surrendering possession of the lands for the purpose of formation of 60 feet road. According to him, the compensation amount, as fixed in the award proceedings, had been deposited and most of the eligible persons withdrew the amount; further, in the Writ Petitions, the petitioners only challenged the notice under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, in such circumstances, the direction in paragraph No.6 of the Common Order cannot be sustained. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and other learned counsel submitted that even though the challenge relates to notice under Section-47 of the Act, inasmuch as no compensation has been deposited pursuant to the award, alternate site has not been given to the previous owners and possession is still with the writ petitioners; they can very well challenge the action of the Government and the Housing Board. He further contended that inasmuch as the Housing Board and the Government agreed for formation of a 30 feet width road in Thangam Colony, the direction of the learned Judge for formation of 60 feet road is liable to be set aside. He also contended that by forming 60 feet width road in Thangam Colony, a portion in 14 houses, part of a school building and a church will have to be demolished. According to him, this Court has ample jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to mould the relief and also consider equity in forming 60 feet road in Thangam Colony. He also contended that though some of the petitioners filed Civil Suits pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench in W.A. No.1279 of 1991, those suits were withdrawn on the assurance that necessary relief would be granted in the Writ Petitions filed by them. 9. Mr.Silambanan, appearing for R-1 in W.A. No.231 of 2005, contended that his client is agreeable for alternate side. 10. We have considered all the relevant materials, entire acquisition proceedings, earlier orders passed in the Writ Petitions filed by Rajendran and others, Orders of the Division Bench as well as rival contentions. 11. It is not in dispute that the challenge in the Writ Petitions relates to the notice issued under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only in W.P. No.974 of 1992, the petitioner therein, i.e., Rajendran, sought for a direction for formation of 60 feet width road in Thangam Colony as formulated by MMDA and approved by the Government. 11. It is not in dispute that the challenge in the Writ Petitions relates to the notice issued under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only in W.P. No.974 of 1992, the petitioner therein, i.e., Rajendran, sought for a direction for formation of 60 feet width road in Thangam Colony as formulated by MMDA and approved by the Government. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board before the learned single Judge that certain lands in Villivakkam Village, formerly Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu M.G.R.District and now in Purasawakkam-Perambur Taluk of Chennai District, forming part of larger component of private lands, were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXIII of 1932, for public purpose, viz., formation of a housing scheme known as “West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme”. Among those lands so acquired, the lands as detailed hereunder have also been included:- It is also brought to our notice that within the above lands, the area known as Thangam Colony, Anna Nagar, is situated. It is further seen from the materials placed that the residents of Thangam Colony submitted a representation, requesting exclusion of their lands from the acquisition proceedings. The Government, in their letter dated 25.02.1970, negatived the request of the Association and requested the Collector of Madras to take possession of the lands and hand over the same to the Housing Board. Again, the Secretary of the Association sent petitions to the Government on 03.04.1970 and 22 .07.1970. Considering the further representation of the Association, the Government, in Memo No.24015/A/HU(3)/70-17 dated 2.2.1972, addressed to the Association, marking a copy to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, specified the following decisions:- a) The lands that are not falling within the road portions may be excluded from acquisition subject to the payment of development charges by members of the Association as fixed by the TNHB. b) The alignment of the road cannot be changed. c) Suitable alternate sites to be given to the persons who are going to be displaced by the Board. b) The alignment of the road cannot be changed. c) Suitable alternate sites to be given to the persons who are going to be displaced by the Board. d) Regarding payment of compensation for structure affected, since the buildings have come up after 4(1) and continued to be constructed despite warnings, there is no case for making ex-gratia payment to such structures.” It is also seen that out of 7.81 acres involved in Thangam Colony, the following lands lie in the proposed road portion:- Survey Nos. 130/2 part : 0.14 acres 131/2 “ : 0.15 acres 132 “ : 0.18 acres 133 “ : 0.25 acres --------------- Total : 0.90 acres --------------- The counter affidavit further shows that on account of the above said order, out of the total extent of 7.81 acres, an extent of 0.90 acres is to be retained for the formation of 60 feet width road. It is also stated that as per the G.O. dated 2.2.1972, the Housing Board, on 30.9.1972, issued allotment orders for allotment of A.P. plots at Anna Nagar itself at concessional rates as alternate accommodation to the persons to be displaced, falling within the alignment of 60 feet width road. It is further stated that without observing the formalities of TNHB Rules and surrendering their lands to the Housing Board, the following 16 persons started to get the sale deeds from the Board paying concessional rates as detailed below during the year 1981 to 1 995, It is also relevant to extract what is stated in paragraph No.25 of the counter affidavit (filed in W.P. No.13248 of 1991):- “The Master plan provided by the MMDA contemplated only a 60’ road at the very places where the TNHB has provided for 60’ road in its layout. Rule 19(i)B(iv) of development control Rules for Chennai area provided 60’ road. Roads having a length between 4999 meters to 1000 meters (i.e. 1 K.M. length) should have minimum road width of 60 feet. The corporation of Madras and MMDA are under statutory obligation to reject any request for sanction of building plan on the proposed 60” road. Rule 19(i)B(iv) of development control Rules for Chennai area provided 60’ road. Roads having a length between 4999 meters to 1000 meters (i.e. 1 K.M. length) should have minimum road width of 60 feet. The corporation of Madras and MMDA are under statutory obligation to reject any request for sanction of building plan on the proposed 60” road. If any sanction has already been given, contrary to their statutory obligations, such constructions are unauthorized constructions in the eye of law and hence are liable to be demolished.” As stated earlier, except two, all others purchased the lands in question either after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or after completion of the entire acquisition proceedings including passing of award. 12. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General, by pointing out the above fact, viz., that the acquisition proceedings were not challenged and of the fact that awards were passed way back in the year 1966 and 1967, would submit that under the guise of questioning the notice under Section 47 of the Act, the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the action of the Government / Housing Board. He relied on the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 671 (Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig) to show that after passing of the award, no writ petition is maintainable. For the same purpose, he also relied on 2005 (3) CTC 691 (Harshavardhan, S. v. State of Tamil Nadu). Further, by pointing out the decisions reported in 1996 (3) SCC 124 (U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.) and AIR 1996 SC 2677 (Ajay Krishan Singhal v. Union of India), Mr. N.R. Chandran contended that subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings and he does not get any title after award has been passed. By drawing our attention to 1996 (7) SCC 426 (Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P.), he further contended that the land owner cannot insist upon allotment of alternative plot. By referring to AIR 1996 SC 520 (Yadu Nandan Garg vs. State of Rajasthan), he pointed out that the land owner cannot insist upon an exemption or exclusion. 13. We verified all the above mentioned decisions. It is clear that after passing of the award, the parties are not permitted to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. By referring to AIR 1996 SC 520 (Yadu Nandan Garg vs. State of Rajasthan), he pointed out that the land owner cannot insist upon an exemption or exclusion. 13. We verified all the above mentioned decisions. It is clear that after passing of the award, the parties are not permitted to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Likewise, it is also clear that subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. However, by stepping into the shoes of his vendor, he can very well ask for compensation in the award proceedings. Absolutely there is no dispute as to the legal principles enunciated in the above decisions cited by the learned Advocate General. As discussed earlier, all the writ petitioners except two purchased the lands in question from several persons, who, in turn, purchased from the original owners, that too, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 14. In this regard, the following factual details, which we culled out from the materials placed, are relevant for the disposal of the above cases. A. The petitioner in W.P. No.8398 of 1992, viz., Smt. Bagavathy Subramaniam/first respondent in W.A. No.226 of 2005 purchased the land in S. No.131/2B at Thangam Colony, Villivakkam Village, only in 1985 from Rajalakshmi. Rajalakshmi purchased the said lands in 1984 from Lakshmanan. Lakshmanan purchased the above said land from F. Nagoor, who, in turn, purchased from the registered holder, viz., Thirunavukkarasu. 4(1) Notification was published on 06.09.1961 and award was passed in Award No.24/66 dated 21.09.1966. It is the claim of the Housing Board that alternate allotment viz., AP 437 at Anna Nagar Scheme, had been given to the predecessor of respondent A. Lakshmanan. But after getting the Sale Deed, he disposed of the site allotted to him by the Housing Board to a third party and also disposed of the Thangam Colony property. According to the Board, Bagavathy Subramaniam has to give land to an extent of 845 sq. ft. to the Board for formation of 6 0 feet width road and the balance land owned by her in the above Survey Number comes under the acquisition proceedings and award has been passed. She filed W.P. No.8398 of 1992 only as against the notice issued under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act and she did not challenge the 4(1) notification, 5-A enquiry and declaration under Section 6. She filed W.P. No.8398 of 1992 only as against the notice issued under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act and she did not challenge the 4(1) notification, 5-A enquiry and declaration under Section 6. B. Petitioner in W.P. No.12774 of 1991 by name Smt. Kasthuri Raja Singh/Respondent in W.A. No.227 of 2005 purchased the land in S. No.130 /2 of Villivakkam Village from F. Nagoor and other in 1979. F. Nagoor purchased the land from Thirunavukkarasu, the registered holder. In his case, 4(1) Notification was published on 11.10.1961 and Award was passed in Award No.10/67, dated 29.04.1967. It is the stand of the Housing Board that during 1989, alternate site in plot No.1080A measuring 1420 sq. ft. was allotted and sale deed was also executed. She had already surrendered 420 sq. ft. in Thangam Colony, 6th Avenue, for 30 feet road. Out of the 1420 sq. ft. allotted, cost had been collected only for 1000 sq. ft. and sale deed had been executed for the plot allotted by the Housing Board. As on date, she is having Thangam Colony property as well as Plot No.1080A and she has to give the land to an extent of 1240 sq. ft. to the Housing Board for formation of 60 feet width road. C. The petitioner in W.P. No.12775 of 1991 is N.V. Deshpande, who is first respondent in W.A. No.228 of 2005, purchased the land in S.No.1 31/2B at Thangam Colony, Villivakkam Village, only in 1988 from Pattammal Sridharan. Thirunavukkarasu was the registered holder as per the records and 4(1) Notification was published on 11.10.1961 and award was also passed in Award No.10/67 dated 29.04.1967. In his case, according to the Housing Board, alternate allotment has been given to his predecessor Bakthavatchalu in AP-426, Anna Nagar Scheme. But, after getting the sale deed, he disposed of the site allotted to him by the Board to third parties and also disposed of the Thangam Colony property. He did not challenge the acquisition proceedings except questioning the impugned notice issued under Section 47 of the Act. D. The petitioner in W.P. No.12776 of 1991, viz., Church of South India/first respondent in W.A. No.229 of 2005, purchased the land through gift deed in S. Nos.131/1 & 131/2A at Thangam Colony, Villivakkam Village, in 1960. In their case, 4(1) Notification was published in 1961 and Award was passed in Award No.10/67 dated 29.04.1969. D. The petitioner in W.P. No.12776 of 1991, viz., Church of South India/first respondent in W.A. No.229 of 2005, purchased the land through gift deed in S. Nos.131/1 & 131/2A at Thangam Colony, Villivakkam Village, in 1960. In their case, 4(1) Notification was published in 1961 and Award was passed in Award No.10/67 dated 29.04.1969. It is the stand of the Housing Board that at the time of giving alternate plot, they did not show any interest for obtaining the alternate plot. As others, the Church had also not challenged any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act except the impugned notice under Section 47 of the Act. E. Kaliaperumal, President of the Association, is the writ petitioner in W.P. No.13248 of 1991 and first respondent in W.A. No.230 of 200 5. As per the letter, dated 22.12.1972, of the Association, the following persons” lands are affected in forming the 60 feet road, 1. J. Alexander 2. M. John Francis 3. A. Myleswamy 4. K. Dhasarath Ramaiah 5. P. Venkatarathinamma 6. Subramania Naicker 7. C.S.I. Church 8. A. Lakshmanan 9. C.G. Bakthavatchalu 10. S. Narasimmalu Chettiar 11. C.J. Manickam 12. B. Santhammal 13. S. Packiriswamy 14. V. Sundaravalli 15. M. Baby Muthian 16. D. Thanaraj According to the Housing Board, as per the Associations representation dated 22.12.1972, all the above 16 persons had occupied the road portions. Out of the above 16 persons, Serial Nos.2, 4, 7, 15 and 16 are still in the road portion lands and others sold out their plots. It is also the claim of the Housing Board that even Kaliaperumal, the President, is not staying in the area in question. Like others, he also did not challenge the 4(1) Notification except the impugned notice under Section 47 of the Act. F. Petitioner in W.P. No.15299 of 1991 viz., D.Thanaraj/1st respondent in W.A. No.231 of 2005, purchased the land in S. No.133/1 part at Thangam Colony at Villivakkam Village only on 30.09.1965 and 18.11.19 65 from Subathirammal and Rangachariyalu and they purchased the land from F. Nagoor, who purchased the same from Thirunavukkarasu, the registered holder. In their case, 4(1) Notification was published in the Gazette on 06.09.1961, award was passed in Award No.10/67, dated 29.04.1967. In their case, 4(1) Notification was published in the Gazette on 06.09.1961, award was passed in Award No.10/67, dated 29.04.1967. It is the claim of the Housing Board that Plot No.AP 242 in Anna Nagar Scheme was allotted to him, but he did not avail the same, since it is small in extent. However, one G.V. Anandan, Power of Attorney from D. Dhanraj, S/o. Devaraja, availed the allotment fraudulently. As per direction of this Court, allotment order pertaining to AP-242 was cancelled and a complaint was lodged with the Central Crime Branch, Egmore. However, the said G.V. Anandan filed W.P. No.29602 of 2004 as against cancellation of allotment order and one Nihar Fathima also filed W.P. No.33022 of 2002, seeking for allotment of Plot No. AP-242. Like others, the petitioner D. Thanaraj also did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings except the notice under Section 47. Before us, the said Thanaraj filed a memorandum dated 21.04.2006 consenting for alternate site to the extent of 5000 sq.ft. in Anna Nagar or nearby area at a concessional rate as per the Government Order. 15. The above details clearly show that the petitioners are not the original owners and that none of them challenged the acquisition proceedings viz., notification under Section 4(1), 5-A enquiry, declaration under Section-6 and award proceedings. In view of the factual details indicated above and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to question the land acquisition proceedings which ended in passing of awards in 1966 and 1967. 16. Now, let us consider the arguments advanced by Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners. We have already referred to the contentions made by him and one of the contentions is that formation of a 60 feet width road would make it inevitable to demolish a portion in 14 houses, one school and a church. Though Mr. Panchu cited several decisions to substantiate that writ court has discretion to mould the relief, in view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that there is no need to refer to those decisions. Though Mr. Panchu cited several decisions to substantiate that writ court has discretion to mould the relief, in view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that there is no need to refer to those decisions. We are not disputing that the court can grant discretionary relief in Writ Proceedings and in an acquisition proceeding also, the court can look into the aspect as to whether equity has arisen in favour of any of the parties. 17. Now let us consider as to whether the Government and the Housing Board have given up the proposal to form 60 feet width road. It is the definite case of the petitioners that due to various representations, particularly Thangam Colony Association, the Housing Board agreed for formation of a 30 feet width road instead of 60 feet as provided in the layout scheme. Mr. Panchu, by drawing our attention to certain correspondence/communications between the Officers of the Board and the Government, contended that formation of 60 feet road had been given up as only a 30 feet road is feasible. We verified those communications, which are available in the typed set filed by the writ petitioners. As rightly pointed out by Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General, though in some communications, the Officers of the Board suggested for formation of a 30 feet road, there is no formal order by the Government modifying the scheme prepared by the MMDA, which is the competent authority. 18. In fact, in W.P. No.6394 of 1989 filed by K. Rajendran, seeking to quash Memo No.P-1/65497/84, dated 03.03.1989, and forbear the respondents from in any manner altering the width of the 60 feet road into a 30 feet road, the 2nd respondent therein, viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, filed a counter affidavit to the effect that it has decided to form 60 feet road and that such road would be formed as and when the Revenue Department hands over the road site to the Board. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the said Writ Petition on 23.04.1991, after recording the statement made in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, permitted the Housing Board to form 60 feet road before 30.09.1991 and also directed the Government/first respondent to hand over the site to the second respondent/Board enabling it to form a 60 feet road within 30.09.1991. The said order of the learned Judge was challenged by Mrs. Kasthuri Raja Singh in W.A. No.1279 of 1991 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, by order dated 21.10 .1991, after observing that the order in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal would not stand in the way of the appellant agitating with regard to the rights claimed by her as well as voicing forth the complaint of breach of assurance stated to have been extended by the Housing Board, permitted her to approach the civil court to vindicate her grievance and ultimately dismissed the writ appeal. In the same order, the Division Bench extended the stay granted earlier for a further period of six months. 19. It has to be seen that the Division Bench did not alter the direction issued by the learned single Judge in the order dated 23.04.19 91. While clarifying the position that the appellant (Mrs.Kasthuri Raja Singh), not being a party to the writ petition, the order passed therein is not binding on her; the Division Bench did not modify the direction issued to the official respondents viz., the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Further, though certain suits had been filed before the City Civil Court, questioning the action of the Government and the Board, even according to Mr. Panchu, those suits had been withdrawn. 20. We have already referred to the stand taken by the Housing Board. It is worthwhile to refer the following stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.13248 of 1991, namely, “The Master plan provided by the MMDA contemplated only a 60” road at the very places where the TNHB has provided for 60” road in its layout. Rule 19(i)B(iv) of development control Rules for Chennai area provided 60” road. Roads having a length between 4999 meters to 1000 meters (i.e. 1 K.M. length) should have minimum road width of 60 feet. The corporation of Madras and MMDA are under statutory obligation to reject any request for sanction of building plan on the proposed 60’0” road. If any sanction has already been given, contrary to their statutory obligations, such constructions are unauthorized constructions in the eye of law and hence are liable to be demolished.” In this regard, it is also relevant to refer to the earlier order of the learned single Judge, dated 07.02.2001. If any sanction has already been given, contrary to their statutory obligations, such constructions are unauthorized constructions in the eye of law and hence are liable to be demolished.” In this regard, it is also relevant to refer to the earlier order of the learned single Judge, dated 07.02.2001. The said order shows that after hearing the arguments on either side, in order to ascertain as to whether formation of a single 60 ft. width two way road is mandatory or two one way roads of 30 ft. width is feasible, the learned Judge directed the Housing Board to submit their report. Pursuant to the said direction, the Secretary and Personnel Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, after inspection, submitted a report. Since we mainly rely on the factual details, it is but proper to refer to the entire Report which reads as under:- “. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. I submit that the “Tamil Nadu Housing Board Lay-out for Arignar Anna Nagar” was approved under (i) L PH No.74/68 (ii) L PH No.75/68 and (iii) L PH No.15/71, by the Government. It provides for a 60 feet wide road running East to West for about 4 KM from Chinthamani Super Market to Anna Nagar West Extension. This is the only straight-road connecting Kilpauk Anna Nagar and Anna Nagar West Extension Scheme. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board layout for Arignar Anna Nagar was approved under (i) L.P.H./D.T.P.No.74/8, (ii) L.P.H./D.T.P. No.75/68, (iii) L.P.H./D.T.P. No.15/71 by the Director of Town & Country Planning. It provides for 60” feet vide, 6th Avenue, Running East to West from III Avenue to 120 feet wide inner ring road, this road connecting Kilpauk Garden Scheme, Anna Nagar Scheme and Anna Nagar Western Extn. Scheme. The 60’0” wide, 6th Avenue joins with 120 feet wide road which is also known as Ring Road through which all the Major transports from Southern India to Northern India passes. This 60 feet wide road has already been formed on the Eastern Western side, excepting in middle about 800 running feet where the road is situated on the north of Thangam Colony Boundary. This 60 feet wide road has already been formed on the Eastern Western side, excepting in middle about 800 running feet where the road is situated on the north of Thangam Colony Boundary. I further humbly submit that the Master Plan provided by the MMDA contemplated only a 60 feet wide road at the very places where the TNHB has provided for 60 feet road in its lay-out. Rule 19(i)B(iv) of Development Control Rules for Chennai area provided 60 feet width road. Roads having a length between 400 meters to 1000 meters (i.e., 1 KM. length) should have a minimum road width of 60 feet, which is a mandatory requirement, I further humbly submit that the major water supply sewerage systems, storm water drain, road side drain formation etc., have already been designed and also actually laid on the east and west and they could not be connected as per standards prescribed, because of the fact that the 800 feet north to Thangam colony could not be formed with 60 feet wide road. Further the housing or improvement schemes could not be provided and completed in the site in question. I further submit that if two roads are to be connected and linked, there should be linking of both sides. That is to say, there cannot be zig-zag linking. It should be straight-linking. Further if one way road is provided there, there is a school on its very first bend and in the second bend there is a church, and hence, this will definitely cause accidents due to the traffic and the heavy traffic will be affected. Heavy vehicles cannot pass through such a zig-zag road. 4. The Government of Tamil Nadu have also filed an affidavit on 7.8.1995 in W.P. No.15299/91 stating that the alignment should not be changed. The Anna Nagar allottees are under the bonafide impression that the 6th avenue is with 60 feet wide road and it is the mandatory duty of the T.N.H.B. to provide for the road with 60 feet wide only. Out of the below stated 16 persons, the persons named in Sl.No.1 to 12 have got the alternate site from the TNHB have put up construction and got the sale Deed also. For the purpose of the benefit of 16 ex land owners/subsequent purchasers, the bonafide rights of the allottees as well as the public-in-charge should not be affected. Out of the below stated 16 persons, the persons named in Sl.No.1 to 12 have got the alternate site from the TNHB have put up construction and got the sale Deed also. For the purpose of the benefit of 16 ex land owners/subsequent purchasers, the bonafide rights of the allottees as well as the public-in-charge should not be affected. If the width of the road is reduced from 60 feet it will definitely affect the public. Further housing (or) improvement schemes could not be provided and completed in the site in question. The formation of two one way roads of 30 feet width each is not feasible, because to lay a one way 30 feet width road while going from east to west, the road will have to take a first turn towards South in between plot Nos.1080 and 1 080A. It will have to go up to Plot No.5045 and then second turn towards west upto the church and then third turn towards north upto the church entrance and then fourth turn towards west upto Plot No.14 of Thangam Colony and again fifth turn towards north and then only it will touch the 60’0” wide road. Thus, the single one way road will have several turns with in the short distance of about 800 feet. 5. The non formation of 60’0” wide roads or the formation of two one way roads of 30 feet width will cause accidents due to heavy traffic because the 120 feet wide road is connected with the VI Avenue within a short distance and it will be very difficult for public, heavy vehicles who use the road. If the 60 feet road is not laid in the middle of the 6th Avenue the entire VI Avenue will be useless and it cannot be put to use for public. The city of Chennai has been widening main road day by day. Especially in Anna Nagar area have developed much and the Koyambedu Bus Stand, market etc., have been located near by Anna Nagar only and in future the entire traffic towards the South and North India will pass only through Anna Nagar. The 60 feet VI Avenue joins with 120 feet inner ring road in short distance which was approved by the Government and competent authority should not be reduced or disturbed. The Government in order Memo No.24015/A/Hg(3)/70-17, dt. The 60 feet VI Avenue joins with 120 feet inner ring road in short distance which was approved by the Government and competent authority should not be reduced or disturbed. The Government in order Memo No.24015/A/Hg(3)/70-17, dt. 2.2.1972 stated that the alignment of the road cannot be changed and suitable alternate sites to be given to the persons who are going to be displaced by the road. Accordingly the alternative T.N.H.B. Plots have been provided at concessional rates (Actual land acquisition cost Development cost) the details given below:- Except the above portion occupied the above stated by 16 persons nothing more is required form any other person to form the 60’-0” wide road in the disputed area. Thiru Thanaraj, petitioner of W.P.No.15299/91 and the Church of South India Petitioner in W.P. 12776/91 have not requested the TNHB to provide for alternative sites. If any request is made by them they will be allotted with an area equivalent to the area surrendered by them for formation of the 60 feet road, as per the order of the Government in Memo No.24015/A/Hu(3)/70-17, dt.02.02.1972, in the adjacent neighbourhood scheme since all the plots in this area (Anna Nagar Scheme) have already been exhausted. If two roads are to be connected and linked, there should be linking of both sides. That is to say, there cannot be zig-zag linking. It should be straight link. If one way road is provided there this will definitely cause accidents due to the traffic and the heavy traffic will be affected. Expecting the petitioner in W.P.No.974/92 the others are challenging Section 47 notice under the Land Acquisition Act. After the issuance of 4(1) notification and that after passing of several years viz., more than 25 years they have no such rights. Excepting the petitioner in W.P.12776/91 viz., the church of South India, the others are not the original owners and they are subsequent purchasers.” 21. After submission of the above report, the learned Judge, by the impugned order dated 08.03.2001, disposed of all the Writ Petitions with a direction as could be seen in paragraph No.6 of His order. Though Mr. Excepting the petitioner in W.P.12776/91 viz., the church of South India, the others are not the original owners and they are subsequent purchasers.” 21. After submission of the above report, the learned Judge, by the impugned order dated 08.03.2001, disposed of all the Writ Petitions with a direction as could be seen in paragraph No.6 of His order. Though Mr. Panchu has argued that both the Government and the Housing Board had given up the proposal for formation of 60 feet width road and that they even agreed for laying of a 30 feet road alone, as discussed and observed earlier, except the correspondence between the officers of the Board and the Government, there is no positive decision or order by the Government or the competent authority viz., the MMDA, for altering the earlier scheme which provides for a 60 feet width road. Further, the report extracted above also shows that as per the Scheme, formation of 60 feet width road is mandatory on the part of the Housing Board. The report also shows that formation of two one way roads of 3 0 feet width will cause accidents due to heavy traffic and it will be very difficult for the public and those drive heavy vehicles to use the road. The report also shows that if a 60 feet width road is not laid in the middle of the 6th avenue, the entire 6th avenue will be useless and cannot be put to use for public. 22. As rightly pointed out, it is not as if 60 feet width road was a new proposal thrust upon the parties. On the contrary, the master plan of the M.M.D.A. (now C.M.D.A.) provided for forming of 60 feet width road for the 6th Avenue at Anna Nagar and such Master Plan had already been approved by the Government. Further, the Housing Board layout also provided for a 60 feet road at 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar. It is also brought to our notice that Development Control Rules provide that roads having length between 499 and 1000 meters should have a maximum width of 60 feet. It is also brought to our notice that as per Rule 19(1)(b)(iv) of the Development Control Rules, 60 feet width road is mandatory and the Housing Board cannot reduce it in any manner. It is also brought to our notice that as per Rule 19(1)(b)(iv) of the Development Control Rules, 60 feet width road is mandatory and the Housing Board cannot reduce it in any manner. We have already referred to the details of the plots, land owners and the area affected. The Government also accepted for providing alternate lands to the plot owners on the basis 'land for land'. In view of the provisions in the Development Control Rules and the Scheme formulated by the MMDA, which were approved by the Government, and taking note of the fact that the entire acquisition proceedings ended in passing of awards as early as in 1966 and 1967; that none of the petitioners (except two) challenged the acquisition proceedings and that the Housing Board offered alternate plots; we hold that as per the report of the Housing Board, the formation of a 60 feet width road is indispensable and we are unable to accept the contra argument advanced by Mr.Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. 23. Now, let us consider the directions issued by the learned Judge in paragraph No.6 of the Common Order. In the said paragraph, the learned Judge issued two directions, viz., (a) payment of compensation for the superstructure in respect of portion of the buildings, which are sought to be demolished for the purpose of formation of 60 feet road; (b) provision of alternate sites. 24. Before considering legality of the direction regarding payment of compensation for the superstructure, let us consider the direction regarding alternate site. 25. In view of the fact that the entire land acquisition proceedings were completed by passing awards in accordance with the provisions under the Act and Rules, there is no legal right to provide alternate site. However, it is not in dispute that, based on the representation of the Association, the Government itself had accepted for providing alternate site on the basis 'land for land' and issued a direction to the Housing Board for implementing the same. We have already referred to the details mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board. Based on the representation of the Association, the Government, in Memo No.24015/A/HU(3)/70-17, dated 2.2.1972, agreed to provide suitable alternate sites to the persons who are going to be displaced by the Housing Board. We have already referred to the details mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board. Based on the representation of the Association, the Government, in Memo No.24015/A/HU(3)/70-17, dated 2.2.1972, agreed to provide suitable alternate sites to the persons who are going to be displaced by the Housing Board. In view of the said communication, we are of the view that it is not open either to the Government or the Housing Board to take a different stand and question the provision of alternate site. As said earlier, even though there is no such provision in the Act and Rules, in view of the decision taken by the Government, as communicated to the Housing Board, all going to be displaced are entitled to alternate site from the Housing Board. In fact, it is the stand of the Housing Board that they complied with the direction of the Government by providing A.P. Plots. It is their definite case that some of the allottees had sold the said lands to third parties. In such circumstances, we uphold the direction of the learned Judge for providing alternate site in respect of the persons going to be displaced by formation of 60 feet width road. 26. Now, let us consider the direction regarding payment of compensation for the superstructures which are put up in the impugned land and sought to be demolished for the purpose of formation of 60 feet width road. 27. We have already found that all the petitioners, except two, are subsequent purchasers. We also noted that the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1961 ended in 1966 and 1967 by passing awards and that none of them had challenged the acquisition proceedings. Though it is stated before us that the land Acquisition Officer did not deposit the compensation amount pursuant to the awards, in the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary and Personnel Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, he has furnished necessary details regarding deposit of the amount which is lying in the revenue account. We have also referred to the various representations of the Association and the decision taken by the Government providing them alternate site at concessional rate in respect of the area to be demolished for the purpose of formation of 60 feet width road. We have also referred to the various representations of the Association and the decision taken by the Government providing them alternate site at concessional rate in respect of the area to be demolished for the purpose of formation of 60 feet width road. Here again, though some petitioners dispute allotment of alternate site, the fact remains, there is an order by the Government for providing alternate site and it is for the Housing Board to fulfil the same in terms of the directions of the Government. 28. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, vehemently contended that in view of the fact that all the petitioners, except two, are subsequent purchasers, purchased the lands from various persons after 4(1) Notification, they are not entitled to compensation for the superstructures put up by them. In other words, according to him, such direction for payment of compensation to the superstructure after passing of the award is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 29. We find considerable force in the said contention. In the earlier part of our Judgment, we have elaborately referred to the acquisition proceedings including passing of the Awards. Whether the amount determined is adequate or not, the fact remains, the Land Acquisition Officer, after taking note of relevant materials, passed the awards. The particulars mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this Judgment clearly demonstrate that the petitioners, except two, are not original owners. It is not the case of the petitioners that their original owners were neither aware of the Land Acquisition proceedings nor paid compensation. In such circumstances, the Court cannot issue a direction outside the purview of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The particulars furnished by the Housing Board, which we have already referred to in the earlier paragraphs, show that the impugned lands were dealt with by several persons even after 4(1) Notification. In such circumstances, if any order is passed for compensation for the superstructure, it would amount to placing a premium on illegality and encouraging persons who trespass and occupy land set apart for roads and other public purposes. In such circumstances, if any order is passed for compensation for the superstructure, it would amount to placing a premium on illegality and encouraging persons who trespass and occupy land set apart for roads and other public purposes. As referred to earlier, though there is no need to provide alternate land, inasmuch as the Government itself agreed to provide alternate site so that the area under their occupation could be handed over and a 60 feet width road could be laid, we are of the view that no question of additional compensation in respect of superstructure would arise. We are also of the view that the observation in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order that the Housing Board and the Government are at liberty to raise funds for payment of compensation in the manner known to law also cannot be sustained. It is to be noted that the entire area was acquired for the formation of “West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme” and after developing the same, plots were allotted to various persons on payment of land cost, development and other charges to the Housing Board. As rightly pointed out, if any further amount is paid to the land owners apart from the amount fixed under the award as well as alternate site at concessional rate, the same has to be recovered from the allottees, who received the same, and it would not be possible at this length of time. 30. It is also relevant to note that even as early as on 2.2.1972, the Government, while providing alternate sites for persons, who have been affected or displaced by the formation of 60 feet width road, in categorical terms, rejected the claim for payment of ex-gratia for construction/superstructure put up after 4(1) Notification. Admittedly, such order has not been challenged by anyone till this date. It is also relevant to refer to the details mentioned in the counter affidavit. In respect of church, it is stated that a small Mangalore tiled shed which is now in a damaged condition and which is not in use for the church purposes is only required to be demolished and the new Big Church Building, which has already been constructed in the same compound, is not at all affected. The new church building has been constructed with enough side open space leaving about 30 to 35 feet in the northern side. The new church building has been constructed with enough side open space leaving about 30 to 35 feet in the northern side. It is the claim of the Housing Board that if the 60 feet width road is completed as proposed, it will not only give a face lift even to the church, but it will also be of great advantage for the people who use that road which includes the church, school going children and a good number of public. It is also stated that if the proposed road is formed, the side open space (vacant space) alone will be affected to an extent of 15 to 20 feet width on the northern side and that, even after that, an extent of about 15 to 20 feet vacant space will be available there. Further, petitioners in W.P. Nos.1 2774/91, 8398/92, 12775/91 have constructed their buildings partly in the road portion without obtaining N.O.C. from T.N.H.B. as required under Section 46(3)(a) of the TNHB Act, 1961. It is specifically stated that if any one of them had applied for sanction of the building plan either to the Corporation of Chennai or the MMDA, suppressing the land acquisition proceedings, such sanction, if ordered, is liable to be revoked or withdrawn on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation of the facts. It is also stated that 10% to 15% of the building constructed in the road portion is liable to be demolished. 31. Taking note of the above factual details and in view of our discussion, we are satisfied that the petitioners are not entitled to further compensation for the superstructures as ordered by the learned Judge in paragraph No.6 of the common order. The direction relating to payment of compensation for superstructure is to be set aside. 32. Coming to the Writ Appeals filed by the Writ Petitioners, it is not in dispute that by common order dated 08.03.2001, the learned Judge disposed of all the Writ Petitions, issuing certain directions as stated in paragraph No.6. The direction relating to payment of compensation for superstructure is to be set aside. 32. Coming to the Writ Appeals filed by the Writ Petitioners, it is not in dispute that by common order dated 08.03.2001, the learned Judge disposed of all the Writ Petitions, issuing certain directions as stated in paragraph No.6. After Writ Appeals having been filed by the Housing Board viz., W.A. Nos.226 to 231 of 2005 and 425 of 2005, that too after completion of the argument of the learned Advocate General for the Housing Board, the Writ petitioners chose to file Writ Appeals, ie., W.A. Nos.254, 255, 456 and 457 of 2006, questioning the finding of the learned Judge, particularly, the conclusion in paragraph No.4, viz., as per the report of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the formation of 60 feet road is indispensable. No doubt, those appeals have been filed with huge delay, yet, taking note of the only fact that the appeals filed by the Housing Board against the very same common order pending before us for consideration, in order to give an opportunity to put forth their contentions, this court, in spite of serious objections by the learned Advocate General, condoned the delay which resulted in numbering their appeals vide W.A. Nos.254, 255, 456 & 457 of 2006. The above fact shows that till the Appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board were taken up for hearing, the Writ Petitioners did not thought of preferring appeals against the common order of the learned single Judge. 33. Though Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel, has pointed out that even the Housing Board filed Appeals only in the year 2005, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, admittedly, there is no delay in filing their appeals. It is also brought to our notice that by virtue of the certified copies applied by them, they filed their appeals without any delay. Whatever it may be, though this Court has condoned the huge delay in filing the appeals (by the writ petitioners), as observed earlier, the fact remains that the petitioners have no serious grievance in respect of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge till the appeals of the Housing Board were heard in part. 34. Whatever it may be, though this Court has condoned the huge delay in filing the appeals (by the writ petitioners), as observed earlier, the fact remains that the petitioners have no serious grievance in respect of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge till the appeals of the Housing Board were heard in part. 34. Mr.Panchu also contended that the State Government and the Housing Board themselves agreed for laying a 30 feet width road instead of 60 feet width road in view of the difficulties expressed by the petitioners. We have already elaborately considered this aspect while considering the appeals filed by the Housing Board. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, except certain correspondence/communication between the Officers of the Housing Board and the Government, there is no positive decision either by the Board or by the State Government, modifying the width of the road viz., from 60 feet to 30 feet in the stretch of Thangam Colony. Merely because there is some reference here and there in their communication, the same cannot be said to be binding either on the Housing Board or on the State Government. Further, we have already referred to the salient features of the scheme framed by the competent authority viz., MMDA, duly approved by the State Government, which mandates laying of road at a width of 60 feet and mainly on that special feature, several persons purchased plots by paying the requisite money as claimed by the Housing Board. Though learned Senior Counsel has also contended that the learned Judge is not justified in getting report from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, one of the contesting parties; inasmuch as the Housing Board being proper executing authority manned by technical persons, we are of the view that the learned Judge has not committed any error in calling for a report from the Housing Board. Accordingly, we reject the claim of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners and agree with the direction issued by the learned Judge and also accept the report of the Housing Board which we have already extracted in toto in the earlier paragraphs. 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners were not added as parties to the proceedings in W.P.6394 of 1989, which resulted in the order dated 23.4.1991, whereby, the TNHB was permitted to form a 60 feet width road. 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners were not added as parties to the proceedings in W.P.6394 of 1989, which resulted in the order dated 23.4.1991, whereby, the TNHB was permitted to form a 60 feet width road. In such circumstances, according to him, the said direction is not binding on them. In this regard, it is relevant to note that this aspect has been clarified in the order dated 25.10.1991 in W.A. No.1279 of 1991 and, in fact, the Division Bench granted six months' time to vindicate their grievance before the Civil Court. It is stated that though they filed Civil Suits before the City Civil Court, according to the learned Senior counsel, when the matter was pending before the learned Judge, as per the undertaking given, the suits were withdrawn in December, 2002. There is no indication in the order of the learned Judge for the same. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the Government and the Housing Board were estopped from questioning the order of the learned Judge. 36. Finally, learned Senior Counsel contended that title passes only after possession is taken and that most of the Writ petitioners stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile purchasers. According to him, no alternate site or compensation has been given for acquisition. As said earlier, all the petitioners except two purchased the lands after 4(1) Notification from various persons. It is the stand of the Housing Board that, on the direction of the Government, alternative sites have been allotted to persons, who were in possession, at concessional rates. This has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board before the learned single Judge. In such circumstances, this cannot be once again canvassed before us and if the petitioners are eligible for alternative sites as per the order of the Government, they are at liberty to approach the Housing Board and subject to verification of the records, if the stand of the petitioners is correct, the Housing Board is bound to provide alternate sites. We are satisfied that none of the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners challenging the common order is sustainable. Since we arrived at such conclusion based on the abundant factual materials, there is no need to refer various decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners. 37. We are satisfied that none of the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners challenging the common order is sustainable. Since we arrived at such conclusion based on the abundant factual materials, there is no need to refer various decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners. 37. In these circumstances, we modify the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.03.2001 and issue the following directions:- (i) The report submitted by the Housing Board is accepted. (ii) In view of the reasons stated in the Report, we hold that formation of a 60 feet width road in the stretch of Thangam Colony is indispensable and mandatory. (iii) We also hold that two one way roads of 30 feet width is not permissible in view of the scheme framed by the competent authority and approved by the Government, keeping in view the traffic hazard as detailed in the report. (iv) Alternate site is to be provided as per the order of the Government dated 02.02.1972 in Memo No.24015/A/HU(3)/70-17. It is made clear that if there are authoritative records to show that alternate site/sites have been provided by the Housing Board and accepted by the persons concerned, there is no need to provide alternate site to every successive purchaser. However, it is made clear that if any of the petitioners/their vendors are not provided with alternate site as directed by the Government, the Housing Board is bound to implement the said order by verifying their records and provide alternate sites at concessional rate to those who are yet to be provided. (v) The direction in paragraph No.6 of the Common Order of the learned Judge for payment of compensation for the superstructure is set aside. (vi) The Housing Board is directed to verify from their records and provide alternate sites at concessional rate to those who are yet to be provided as per the order of the Government within a period of two months from to-day. (vii) The petitioners are granted three months' time from to-day to vacate and hand over the actual area required for the formation of 60 feet width road. With the above direction, WA Nos.226 to 231 and 425 of 2005 filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are allowed in part. W.A. Nos.254, 255, 456 and 457 of 2006 filed by the Writ Petitioners are dismissed. No costs. Connected WAMPs are closed.