Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was formerly the owner of the lands comprised in S.No.50 (Part) and 40 (Part) and S.No.39 at Mambalam Village, Guindy Taluk, Chennai. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1971 (herein after called as ‘Slum Clearance Act) declaring the above lands as slum area” Vide G.O. Ms. No. 787, Housing dated 17. 1975. Thereafter, the government issued a notification under Section 17(1) of the Act to acquire the said land as per G.O.Ms.No.224, Housing and Urban Development dated 4. 1981. The petitioner did not raise any objection and as a matter of fact, with his consent, possession was also taken over. Thus, as per Section 18 of the said Act, the land stood vested with the Government with effect from 4. 1981. However, compensation amount payable to the petitioner was not determined as required under Section 20 of the Act. 2. An award enquiry was conducted on 6. 1981, in which the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- per ground. When the proceeding was still unconclusive, in W.P.No.1485 of 1979, this Court struck down Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act by order dated 23. 1985. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4905 of 1982 for a direction to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner. After the order of this Court dated 23. 1983 in W.P.No.1485 of 1979, this Court took a note of the said fact and ultimately in W.P.No.4905 of 1982 directed as follows: “It is stated that certain provisions of Act 11 of 1971 relating to computation of compensation have been struck down by this Court in W.P.No.1485 of 1979 etc. by judgment, dated 23. 1983 holding that the compensation awardable could be only on the basis as determinable under Land Acquisition Act. Hence the only task that remains, is to determine the quantum of compensation. When second respondent knows quite well that third respondent had taken possession of the lands of the petitioner, the time now granted is more than what could ordinarily be required, and hence the writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondents, that “final determination of compensation should be arrived at and final orders under Act 11 of 1971 passed by 9. 1983” to this effect, this writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.300/- to paid by respondents 1 to 3 equally.” 3. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment by the Government in W.A.No.788 of 1983. In this said writ appeal, a Division Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 18. 1983, ordered as follows: “1. That notice do issue to the second respondent herein to show cause why this petition should not be complied with: (2) that on condition of the petitioners herein fixing the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act expeditiously and an interim measure instead of fixing under the same Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1971, the operation of the order of the High Court dated 4. 1983, and made in W.P.No.4905 of 1983 on the file of the High Court shall be stayed pending further orders on this petition, and it is further orders (3) that the directions of this Court shall be obtained before making payment of compensation as stated above.” 4. Based on the above directions issued by the Division Bench, the Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras, tentatively determined the amount. Again, by another interim order dated 20.3.1984, in the said Writ appeal, the Division Bench passed the following Order: “the appellants cannot have the lands and retain them and at the same time declaim to compensate for the deprivation of the lands to the first respondent. We find that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in this petition who are the appellants in the writ appeal it is stated that the compensation for the entire lands tentatively fixed at Rs.4.20 lakhs. We do not find any difficulty in directing the disbursement of this sum of Rs.4.20 lakhs tentatively determined. The respondents in this petition who are the appellants in the writ appeal have got ample security in the form of land, the subject matter of acquisition. Accordingly, we issued direction to the respondents in this petition to pay to the petitioner, the first respondent In the writ appeal a sum Rs. 4.20 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from this date.” Accordingly, within the time stipulated, the above said sum of 4.20 lakhs was deposited. 5. Accordingly, we issued direction to the respondents in this petition to pay to the petitioner, the first respondent In the writ appeal a sum Rs. 4.20 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from this date.” Accordingly, within the time stipulated, the above said sum of 4.20 lakhs was deposited. 5. In view of the order of this Court striking down the provisions of Slum Clearance Act and in view of the direction of the Division Bench as extracted above fresh acquisition proceedings were limited under the Land Acquisition Act and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 7. 1993 in G.O. Ms. 527 Housing and Urban Development Department and the same was published on 27. 1993. Consequential notice was published by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) on 18. 1993. Notice under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in G.O. Ms.549 Housing and Urban Development Department on 18. 1994. But no award of compensation was made under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. When things stood thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal No.3312 of 1981 filed against the judgment of this Court, in which this Court had struck down the provisions of Slum Clearance Act and the Supreme Court held that Chapter VI of the said Act is constitutionally valid. (See: State of Tamil Nadu and Ors v. Ananthi Ammal and Others (1995) Writ L.R. 781). 7. Since, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the operation of the Slum clearance Act as well as the other proceedings got revived, the fourth respondent wrote a letter to the first respondent seeking certain clarifications as to whether further proceedings should be continued under the Slum Clearance Act or under the Land Acquisition Act. In this regard, there were several communications between various Departments about which a detailed reference need not be made in this Order as the same is not necessary. 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was writing to the Government to determine the compensation amount and to pay the same with interest. Since nothing turned out from the Government, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.36603 of 2004 before this court seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (MRTS) & City works, Madras city to fix the compensation for the lands and to pay the same with solatium and interest. Since nothing turned out from the Government, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.36603 of 2004 before this court seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (MRTS) & City works, Madras city to fix the compensation for the lands and to pay the same with solatium and interest. By order dated 12. 2004, the second respondents, Land Acquisition Officer-Special Tahsildar was directed to dispose of the presentation of the petitioner dated 20.8.2004 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Despite such order passed by this Court, the proceedings were not expedited to fix appropriate compensation. 9. As the petitioner could not get compensation even after about two and half decades, he was impelled to file the present writ petition in W.P.No. 22724 of 2008 for a direction to the fourth respondent the Collector of Chennai, to take up all effective steps to pay compensation to the petitioner by taking into account the present market value and in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 4905 of 1982, W.A. 788 of 1983 and W.P. No. 36603 of 2004 and to pay the same together with solatium and interest on considering his representation, dated 110. 2005 and 17. 2008. 10. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not been given due compensation for such a long time , this court on 210. 2008 ordered notice of motion returnable in four weeks. Notice was accordingly served on the respondents. But, though the case was listed on several dates for hearing, the respondents did not come forward with any explanation or counter. 11. When the case was taken up for hearing on 13. 2009, this Court, therefore, directed the second respondent to be present before this Court on 13. 2009 along with entire records. Accordingly, on 13. 2009, the second respondent appeared and submitted that the relevant files could not be found out in the office and so he wanted time to search for the same. Conceding to the said request, while adjourning the case, as in the opinion of this Court that there were prima facie materials to show that there was disobedience of the earlier order, this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to explain by means of an affidavit as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Conceding to the said request, while adjourning the case, as in the opinion of this Court that there were prima facie materials to show that there was disobedience of the earlier order, this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to explain by means of an affidavit as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. On 20.3.2009, when the case was listed, the Special Tahsildar-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, MRTS, Chepauk, Chennai was present in Court. But he claimed that he was concerned only about the land Acquisition in respect of MRTS Projects and in respect of the present dispute, the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy, Chennai alone is responsible. However, considering the request of the learned Special Government Pleader to get definite instruction from the first respondent, the matter was adjourned to 23. 2009 directing respondents 1and 2 to be present before this Court, since they failed to file affidavit as per the earlier direction of this Court dated 13. 2009. 12. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 14. 2009, there was no improvement. Neither the respondents were present nor any affidavit was filed. Therefore, this Court was constrained to direct the first respondent to appear before this court on 14. 2009. Accordingly, the first respondent appeared Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent submitted that appropriate affidavit would be filed by the first respondent explaining as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the, first respondent and he prayed for further time. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 24. 2009. 13. On 24. 2009, the first respondent filed an affidavit explaining the reasons as to why earlier Orders of this Court could not be complied with, wherein he has stated that the earlier orders of this Court were not brought to his notice by his subordinates and he came to know about the proceedings only on 14. 2009 for the first time. He has further explained that appropriate departmental action is taken against the erred officers and has prayed for dropping of further proceedings against him. This Court is Satisfied with the said explanation and therefore, no further proceeding is initiated against the first respondent. 14. 2009 for the first time. He has further explained that appropriate departmental action is taken against the erred officers and has prayed for dropping of further proceedings against him. This Court is Satisfied with the said explanation and therefore, no further proceeding is initiated against the first respondent. 14. In the counter filed in the main Writ petition, the first respondent has stated that there was confusion among the officials as to whether the proceedings should be continued under the Slum Clearance Act or under the Land Acquisition Act to determine the amount of compensation. Finally, he has stated that now, it has been clarified and also finally decided to continue further proceedings only under the Slum Clearance Act and he has prayed for grant of four weeks time to the third respondent to calculate the actual amount of compensation and interest, if any, and to pay the balance amount after deducting a sum of Rs.4.20 lakhs already paid to the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, however contend that the stand taken by the first respondent, that compensation would be determined only as per the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act, is not at all legally sustainable. According to him, the amount of compensation is to be determined as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as directed by this Court earlier in W.A.No. 788 of 1983. He would further submit that if the amount of compensation is determined under the Slum Clearance Act, the petitioner would be put to more disadvantages and so, the respondents should be directed to determine the compensations as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. P.S. Raman would further contend that it would be legally appropriate and sustainable to proceed further to determine the amount of compensation only under the Slum Clearance Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act, Since the order of this Court striking down Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act was later on set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the original proceedings initiated under the Slum Clearance Act would get revived and as, such proceedings should be continued to determine the quantum of compensation. He would further submit that as per Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act no award was passed within a period of two years, the entire proceedings for acquisition of land shall lapse and in this case, since now award was passed in favour of the petitioner within the said stipulated period, all proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act shall stand lapsed and so, the respondents cannot hereafter proceed to determine the amount of compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act. 17. I have considered the rival submissions. 18. Admittedly, the land was acquired initially only under Slum Clearance Act by issued of Notice under Section 17(1) of the Act on 12. 1980. As per Section 18 of the said Act, the land vest absolutely with the Government form the date on which the notice is published. Since, in this case, Section 17(1) notice under the Act was published on 12. 1980, the petitioner’s land stood vested with the Government and thereafter, the petitioner had no right whatsoever over the said land except his right to receive the compensation, It should be seen that there is no provision in the Act like Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, whether the award is passed or not, the vestiture of the land in the Government is absolute. Admittedly, when the proceedings, for determination of compensation was inconclusive, Chapter VI of the Act was struck down as unconstitutional by this Court on 9. 1981. Therefore, the entire proceedings including the vestiture stood cancelled. However, when the said judgment of this court was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 211. 1994 in Civil Appeal No. 3312 of 1981, all the proceedings under Slum clearance Act including the vestiture of the land under Section18 if the Act would get restored. Thus as of now, the consequential proceedings to determine the amount of compensation is revived and the same is pending. It should be noted that there is no limitation provided in this Act as provided in Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. For all these reasons, I hold that the respondent can proceed only under Slum Clearance Act for determine of the Compensation Amount. 19. Insofar as the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11. For all these reasons, I hold that the respondent can proceed only under Slum Clearance Act for determine of the Compensation Amount. 19. Insofar as the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11. 1980, and notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 18. 1984, in peculiar circumstances. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, since no award was passed within two years from the date of declaration as required under Section 11 of the Act, the said proceedings shall automatically lapse. Therefore, after such lapse, the authorities cannot proceed to determine the amount of compensation as per the proceedings of Land Acquisition Act. 20. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the earlier proceedings in W.A.No.788 of 1983, this Court directed to determine the amount of compensation only under the Land Acquisition Act and so determination of compensation should be made only under the said Act, This contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that on the date when the order was passed by the Division Bench, Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act stood struck down by the Division Bench had directed the authorities to determine the compensation under Land Acquisition Act. Later on, since the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of this Court and has upheld Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act, the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.788 of 1983 would merge with the order of the Supreme Court. So, determination of the amount of compensation cannot be now made under the Land Acquisition Act. 121. Later on, since the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of this Court and has upheld Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act, the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.788 of 1983 would merge with the order of the Supreme Court. So, determination of the amount of compensation cannot be now made under the Land Acquisition Act. 121. The learned Additional Advocate General has taken me through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No 3312 of 1981 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Ananthi Animal and Others (supra) and he has also relied on a subsequent judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in K. Arunachalam and Others v. District Collector, Salem and Others (1996) 1 MLJ 63 wherein, after referring to various judgments and more particularly, the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Ananthi Animal and Others (supra) case, this Court has held as follows: “Article 141 of the Constitution of India runs thus: “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.” All Court in India are bound, to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, In the instant case, a Division Bench of this Court allowed Several writ petitions by a common judgment declaring the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 as unconstitutional but on appeal by the State, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the said Act by setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The law declared by the Supreme Court would, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution be binding upon all the petitioners before the High Court and not merely on a particular petitioner as against whom the state has preferred an appeal. As observed by the Supreme Court, the law laid down by the Supreme Court upholding the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 will bind not only the parties before it but also other petitioners against whom the State had not filed any appeal, in view of the binding nature of the judgment of the Supreme Court under Art.141 of the Constitution. Therefore, I am of the view that the mandamus issued by a learned single judge of this Court was rendered ineffective not only in one case but in all cases as a result of the Supreme Court verdict setting aside the common judgment of this Court. 22. Relying on the same, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the law declared in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Ananthi Animal and Others (supra) case would be binding on the authorities land therefore, the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.788 of 1983 no more remains enforceable against the respondents. I am in full agreement with the said argument of learned Additional Advocate General. As I have already stated, the respondents are bound by law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Ananthi Animal and Others (supra) case and so they have to proceed to determine the compensation only under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been put to heavy loss due to non determination of the compensation amount for no default of his and therefore, special damage may be ordered to be paid by the respondents. The learned Additional General would submit that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 4% per annum under Section 25 of the said Act and apart from that he is not entitled for any damages as it is barred under Section 21(d) of the Act. 24. Of course, it is true that under Section 21(d) of the Act, any damage sustained by the owner of the land shall not be taken into account while determining the amount of compensation and the land owner is entitled only for interest at the rate of 4% per annum. But, the fact and circumstances of the instant case are so peculiar. Here is a man who has been fighting to get appropriate compensation for more than 25 years. Repeated representations made by the petitioner to the respondents for determination of compensation and his repeated approach to this Court on previous occasions were not taken seriously by the respondents. Even the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.36603 of 2004 dated 12. 2004 also has not been complied with. Repeated representations made by the petitioner to the respondents for determination of compensation and his repeated approach to this Court on previous occasions were not taken seriously by the respondents. Even the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.36603 of 2004 dated 12. 2004 also has not been complied with. For non compliance of the order of this Court in the said writ petition, the respondents can be proceeded against for contempt, but, as I have already stated in the previous paragraphs, I do not propose to initiate any contempt proceedings for such initiation of contempt proceedings for such initiation of contempt proceedings alone would not repair the loss caused to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner may be paid ex gratia as special damages beyond the purview of the Act. Having regard to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that payment of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as special damages by the respondents apart from the award amount and interest amount would meet the ends of justice. 25. In view of all the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The first respondent shall ensure that the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement; and Clearance) Act 1971 shall determine the amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The respondents shall pay the award amount so determined with interest as provided under Section 25 of the Act after deducting the amount already paid within a period of two months thereafter. (iii) If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the determination order, he is at liberty to work out his further remedies under the Act. (iv) The first respondent shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-as special damages to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.