Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed to declare the letter issued by the respondent in No.B2/4019/2010 dated 11.3.2010 as illegal and ultravires under Sections 54 and 111 of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 2. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows: The land in Survey numbers in question are on earlier occasion, covered under land acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) notification dated 15.5.1978 and the land acquisition proceedings was after Section 6 declaration, challenged by some of the land owners in batch of writ petitions and the learned single judge quashed Section 6 declaration and subsequent proceedings in respect of the acquisition and issued further direction to the government to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of Section 4(1) notification and on appeal preferred by the land owners, our High court also quashed Section 4(1) notification in respect of the lands covered in the writ petition. However, neither the government nor Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter shortly referred to as TNHB) who is the requisitioning body preferred any further appeal against the order quashing entire Section 6 declaration and subsequent acquisition proceedings and hence, the Division Bench of our High court held that the same becomes final and the order passed by the Division Bench has also been challenged by TNHB by way of SLP and the SLP was also dismissed by confirming the order of the Division Bench. Thereafter, various clarifications sought for from the authorities concerned by the petitioners as well as other land owners including erstwhile land owners of the petitioners as to whether any fresh proceedings are pending in respect of the land in question and the authorities have categorically replied that no acquisition proceedings are pending in respect of the survey numbers in question and the lands in respect of which 4(1) notification was not quashed could not be utilised for any other purpose by the Housing Board. 3. As a matter of fact, the petitioner and another have also filed W.P.Nos.6108 and 20896 of 2009 for declaring the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands to be lapsed, abated and inoperative and for directing the respondents to reconvey the lands in question to the petitioners and to direct the respondents not to interfere with their possession, enjoyment and development activities carried on in the lands. The reliefs sought for are on the strength of the earlier orders quashing the entire Section 6 declaration and subsequent acquisition proceedings and the recommendation of the High Level Committee, TNHB who is the requisitioning authority for reconveying the lands to the respective land owners on the ground that no acquisition proceedings is pending and the lands which are said to be vesting upon TNHB could not be utilised as the surrounding lands in respect of which section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration are already quashed are reconveyed to the land owners. 4. The petitioner purchased the lands in question from the erstwhile owners after duly ascertaining the fact that no acquisition proceedings is pending in respect of the survey numbers in question and entered into an agreement with the third party promoter and applied to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and other local authority for necessary planning permission and the planning permission was duly and unconditionally granted as early as on 16.3.2007 by CMDA and the petitioner has been carrying on development activities on the strength of such permission. Thereafter the petitioner has during 2009 made an application for revised planning permission wherein CMDA insisted NOC from TNHB for processing the revised planning permission, the same compelled the petitioner to approach this court in W.P.No.24957 of 2009 for issuing appropriate direction to CMDA to issue planning permission in respect of the lands in question without insisting NOC from Housing Board. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.7.2010 directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of planning permission without insisting upon NOC from TNHB within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and such order was passed by our High court after ascertaining the stage of the acquisition proceedings from the learned standing counsel for TNHB who represented that no acquisition proceedings are pending in respect of the survey numbers in question. In the mean time, CMDA has on the strength of the letter dated 22.12.2009 from TNHB, issued show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 to the petitioner as to why Planning permission issued on 16.3.2007 should not be revoked since TNHB claims that the land is in their possession. Such show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 is now challenged before this court in this writ petition. 5. Such show cause notice dated 11.3.2010 is now challenged before this court in this writ petition. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has seriously challenged the validity and enforceability of the impugned notice on two grounds legally by relying upon Sections 54(1a) and 111 of Town and Country Planning Act 1973 and factually that no land acquisition proceedings are pending as on today. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. As already stated Section 6 declaration was challenged in 1983, the same was quashed in 1984 and the same was also confirmed by the Honble Supreme court in 1992 and till date no fresh land acquisition proceedings is initiated in pursuance of Section 4(1) notification in respect of the lands not covered under the earlier writ proceedings and no fresh Section 6 declaration is made. Though the award proceeding was initiated and compensation was paid to the erstwhile land owners, the same without Section 6 declaration is necessarily to be held as non est in law and the vesting if any of any land upon TNHB can have no legal sanctity and the acquisition proceedings is for all practical purpose, necessarily to be held as abated. That being so, the requisitioning body, TNHB whose High Level Committee has already recommended for reconveyance of the land cannot legally make any claim that the land acquisition is still pending and possession is with the same and no further activity can be permitted upon the lands. 8. As a matter of fact, it is specifically represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.24957 of 2009 that no acquisition proceedings is pending and the writ petition was disposed of on 20.7.2010 by the learned single judge of our High court with direction issued to CMDA to process the planning permission without insisting for NOC from TNHB. As such, neither CMDA nor TNHB can be now permitted to interfere with the right of the petitioner in carrying on the development activities by seeking to cancel the planning permission already issued to the petitioner. On this score alone, the impugned show cause notice issued by CMDA is necessarily to be set aside as one without jurisdiction. 9. As such, neither CMDA nor TNHB can be now permitted to interfere with the right of the petitioner in carrying on the development activities by seeking to cancel the planning permission already issued to the petitioner. On this score alone, the impugned show cause notice issued by CMDA is necessarily to be set aside as one without jurisdiction. 9. Even otherwise, though CMDA is vested with power to revoke the earlier permission granted by invoking the relevant provisions of law under Section 54 (1a) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the same will not affect the development already carried out on the strength of the earlier planning permission granted and in the event of such revocation of the earlier permission, CMDA is liable to pay compensation for the expenditure already incurred after the earlier grant of permission. As rightly argued by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, CMDA is in no manner bound to pay compensation on the strength of the objection that too not valid objection raised by TNHB. Further, as per Section 111 of the Act, the power exercised by CMDA shall have no overriding upon the provisions of other Rules and Act. 10. Even assuming it is to be true that the Government is under contemplation to initiate any fresh proceedings that will in no way affect the permission already granted by CMDA and any development carried on, on the strength of the same. Even if it is a request for renewal or fresh permission, it has to be subject to acquisition proceedings, if any, processed. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, in the course of argument, produced the order of the Honble Division Bench of our High Court dated 22.9.2006 made in W.P.No.36111 of 2005 wherein, the Honble Division Bench has directed CMDA to consider the planning permission application and to pass order without NOC from TNHB and this order was also challenged before the Honble Supreme Court by TNHB in Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No.20551 of 2006 and the Honble Supreme Court was by order dated 5.1.2007 pleased to dismiss the same. The petitioner herein standing on the better footing. While in the other case, acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question is pending. The petitioner herein standing on the better footing. While in the other case, acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question is pending. Here in the instant case, even according to TNHB no acquisition proceeding is pending and the same CMDA has already been in W.P.No.24957 of 2009 directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of planning permission without insisting upon NOC from TNHB. That being so, the show cause notice seeking to revoke the earlier permission is totally arbitrary and erroneous. 12. In so far as CMDA is concerned, the same has no authority to cancel the earlier permission granted on the ground that the acquisition proceedings is pending or TNHB is objecting. That being the legal and factual position, the impugned notice issued by CMDA is, in my considered view, illegal, unfair, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.