Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.10.2005 in W.P.No.21285 of 2002.) Common Order (K. Chandru, J.) The first appellant is the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and the appellants 2 to 6 are the official respondents in the main writ petition being W.P.No.21285 of 2002. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.10.2005 made in W.P.No.21285 of 2002, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2. The respondents 1 to 13 are the writ petitioners in the main writ petition and one Vadivel Mandiri, the seventh petitioner, since deceased, has not been made as a respondent. In the order under Appeal, the learned Judge held that the properties of the respondents were requisitioned under the Tamil Nadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1956 and it was requisitioned for creating a State Seed Farm in Navaloc Village, Wallajah Taluk. A lease amount for the period of eleven years from 1977-78 to 1987-88 was sanctioned for a sum of Rs.1,40,053/- for the land, which was to the extent of 410.46 acres. Thereafter, neither the appellants took any further steps to acquire the lands in terms of the Tamil Nadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1956 nor any compensation was paid to the land owners, who are the respondents herein. The respondents have sent a representation dated 30.01.2002 and no reply was sent to them. 3. Even before the learned Judge, no counter affidavit was filed by the appellants with reference to the acquisition. Therefore, as ten years have elapsed from the date of requisition and in the absence of any exercise of an option by the Government, the learned Judge further held that there was no question of retaining the lands and necessarily, the lands have to be returned to the land owners. In the light of the above facts, the learned Judge directed the appellants to return the lands to the respondents and to deliver possession within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order and also to compute the compensation from 1987-88 till the date of order and if no agreeable amount is ascertained, an arbitrator may be appointed for calculating the same and that amount should also be paid within six months. Aggrieved by the same, as already stated, the present appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader representing the appellants and Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel taking notice for the respondents and have perused the records. 5. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that a writ of this nature is not permissible and the Government Order requisitioning the property was not challenged; that the respondents were guilty of latches since they have not come to the Court at the earlier point of time; the appellants have invested huge amounts for developing the Seed Farm in a land, which was earlier unfit for cultivation and as the legislation was directory, the time limit of ten years cannot be held against them. 6. We are not impressed with these submissions. It is to be stated that Section 6(1-A)(2) of the Act clearly contemplates return of the lands after the expiry of ten years unless the property is acquired under Section 7. In the absence of any counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader is not in a position to state whether any such option has been exercised by the Government. Even in the affidavit filed in support of W.A.M.P.No. 1672 of 2006 seeking for stay of the impugned order under appeal, all that was stated was that the Government had issued a final order on 15.10.1980 in G.O.Ms.No.2045, Agriculture Department, requisitioning the said land for having a Seed Farm. Except by stating that they have created a Seed Farm with huge expenditure, there is no averment as to whether the Government had intended to acquire the land in terms of Section 7 of the Act or at least now in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. The latches pleaded by the appellants are devoid of any merits since the Act under which the lands were requisitioned is a complete code and in the absence of the appellants exercising an option to acquire the land, there is no question of any latches on the part of the land owners and it is incumbent upon the appellants to return the lands if they do not want to have it any more. 7. 7. However, after hearing the parties at length, it was suggested to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether they still seek the return of the land or they are willing to have their lands acquired by the Government even though the time limit stipulated under Section 6 of the Act had expired long ago. 8. Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly stated that since the State Seed Farm is already functioning, they are not actually seeking for delivery of possession and they will be satisfied if the Government invokes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire their lands. However, he pleaded that instead of driving the parties for any arbitration, the Court itself can fix a just compensation for the period from 1988 till the lands are actually acquired by the Government. 9. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader stated that the Government is intending to acquire the land and, therefore, an order may be passed for a reasonable compensation. 10. In the light of the above, we directed the learned counsel for the respondents to submit the guideline value for the area in question. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted the guideline value for different blocks of period starting from 1988 till 2006 and also sought for 6% as just compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that compensation at the rate of 6% p.a. on the amounts culled out from the guideline value for the Ranipet Taluk will be just and proper. Accordingly, the following amounts were arrived at. 1. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 1988 to 1991 " Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.1500/- 2. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 1991 to 1994 " Rs.45,000/- Rs.47,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.2760/- 3. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 1994 to 1996 " Rs.50,100/- Rs.51,700/- @6% p.a. Rs.3000/- 4. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 1996 to 1999 " Rs.58,000/- Rs.59,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.3540/- 5. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 2000 to 2002 " Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.4200/- 6. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 2003 to till day " Rs.77,000/- Rs.77,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.4620/- 11. In the light of the above, we are inclined to order the above compensation to be paid to the respondents. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 2000 to 2002 " Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.4200/- 6. 1st Bogam 2nd Bogam 2003 to till day " Rs.77,000/- Rs.77,000/- @6% p.a. Rs.4620/- 11. In the light of the above, we are inclined to order the above compensation to be paid to the respondents. We direct the appellants to pay the compensation from 1988 till the date of acquisition on the basis of the guideline value applicable to the area in question at the rate of 6% per annum per acre to the respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the learned Judge regarding the delivery of possession is hereby modified and the option is given to the appellants to acquire the land in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after following the due procedure contemplated under the Act. It is also hereby recorded that the respondents have no objection to the acquisition of their lands for the said Seed Farm. 12. The writ appeal shall stand disposed of except to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed. 13. The prayer in W.P.No.5571 of 2006 is similar to the one in W.A.No.1121 of 2006. In view of the writ appeal being heard, we directed the writ petition also to be heard along with the writ appeal. 14. Since the writ appeal has been disposed of with directions, the same principle will apply to this writ petition also. The respondents in the writ petition are directed to provide compensation as indicated in the writ appeal and also to acquire the lands in terms of the Land Acquisition Act as directed above. The writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment in the writ appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs.