Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for and quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 07.4.2004 and to direct the respondents to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation, together with the statutory benefits due to the petitioner. 2. The issue arising for consideration is with regard to the acquisition of some of the lands in Narasingapuram Village, by the state Government, in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Section 4 (1) Notification had been issued in the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.916, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.7.1980. After the necessary formalities had been completed, an award had been passed, on 19.5.1985. Since, the compensation awarded to the owners of the lands was very low, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, was sought for by one of the land owners. The reference had been made and it had been numbered as L.A.O.P.No.5 of 1991, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem. After a due enquiry, the compensation amount had been enhanced. Thereafter, the matter had been agitated before this Court, in A.S.No.26 of 1997. While so, a number of erstwhile owners of the lands acquired by the state Government had made representation to the Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood scheme, Salem, the respondent herein, requesting for the grant of higher compensation for his land. Since, the representation had not been disposed of, the petitioner had come before this Court, by way of a writ petition, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to pass orders on his representation. Though this Court had directed the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, the respondent could not comply with the direction issued by this Court, since, an appeal, in A.S.No.26 of 1997, was pending on the file of this Court with regard to the awarding of enhanced compensation, in respect of the lands in question. In such circumstances, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 07.04.2004, expressing his inability to comply with the directions of this Court. 3. In such circumstances, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 07.04.2004, expressing his inability to comply with the directions of this Court. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the appeal, in A.S.No.26 of 1997, had been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 9.1.2009 and therefore, the respondent could be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had not disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 07.04.2004, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.04.2004, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 30.04.2004, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.5744 of 2006 is closed.