Judgment :- Writ Petition has been filed indirectly challenging the validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings pertaining to the lands in S.Nos.52/2, 53/2, 54/1, 55/3 – Tiruvanmiyur after four decades and seeking for Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from in any manner dealing or allotting the above said lands. 2. Petitioner claims that lands originally belonged to K.K.Srinivasa Pillai and the said K.K.Srinivasa Pillai settled the lands measuring 1.49 Acres comprised in Paimash No.580, bearing Patta No.55 in Thiruvanmiyur village in favour of Petitioners mother Deivanai Ammal under document No.2046/1957 in Sub Registrars Office, Saidapet [20.06.1957]. Petitioner now claims that the lands referred above was situated in S.Nos.52/2, 53/2, 54/1, 54/2 (Part) and 55/2, 55/3 and 55/7 (Part) and now assigned as T.S.No.10, Block No.16, Thiruvanmiyur village. 3. Tamil Nadu Housing Board [TNHB] acquired the lands comprised in S.Nos.53/1, 53/2, 54/1 and 54/3 and other lands even before four decades. The following dates are relevant to be noted: After passing of Award, G.O.Ms.No.1324 Revenue Department dated 07. 1968 was issued whereby the lands measuring about 4.34 Acres comprised in S.Nos.46/1, 58/1, 48/2, 54/2, 55/2, 55/7, 153/2, 155/1 & 154/1 was alienated to Tamil Nadu Housing Board at the rate of Rs.14,520/-per acre. Revised Award No.4/1973 was passed in respect of the lands comprised in S.Nos.55/3A on 12.04.1973. 5. Nearly after 40 years of acquisition, Petitioner filed Writ Petition claiming that he is entitled to the acquired properties based on settlement deed dated 20.06.1957 executed in favour of his mother Deivanai Ammal by K.K.Srinivasa Pillai. Petitioner claims that after the death of his mother, he is entitled to the above said lands [Paimash No.580] and Petitioner claims that Patta, Chitta and Adangal of the lands were standing in his name. 6. On behalf of Writ Petitioner, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Award does not disclose as to who is the actual owner and no materials are produced to substantiate that one Babu Gurukal, C.R.Narayana Rao and Besant Centenary Trust were owners of the acquired lands. It was further argued that even though, Writ Petitioner has filed Petitions calling for production of documents, in the absence of production of documents, adverse inference has to be drawn against the Housing Board. 7. On behalf of Housing Board, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General contended that only after due compliance of procedure, Award was passed and Petitioner cannot challenge acquisition proceedings after four decades. 7. On behalf of Housing Board, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General contended that only after due compliance of procedure, Award was passed and Petitioner cannot challenge acquisition proceedings after four decades. It was further contended that by virtue of acquisition and G.O.Ms.No.1324 Revenue Department dated 07. 1968, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has become the owner of the properties and Petitioner cannot seek for an injunction restraining the Housing Board from dealing with the properties. 8. As pointed out earlier, by virtue of acquisition and G.O.Ms.No.1324 Revenue Department dated 07. 1968, Tamil Nadu Housing Board had become the owner of acquired lands in S.Nos.54/2, 55/2, 55/7 and other properties. Petitioner claims that properties in Paimash No.580 relates to S.No.52/2 and other properties. Writ Petitioner has not produced any document to correlate Paimash No.580 with the above said ryotwari Survey numbers. Petitioner has produced Xerox copy of Chitta for the year 1987 for S.Nos.52/2, 53/2, 54/1, 54/2, 55/2, 55/3 and 55/7 allegedly in the name of his mother Deivanai Ammal. Petitioner has also produced Xerox copy of Adangal. Both Chitta and Adangal produced by the Writ Petitioner are said to have been issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Mylai-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District. Serious doubts arise as to the genuineness of those documents. In his Proceedings O.Mu./Pa.Ma./2054/06-07 dated 211. 2006, Mylapore-Triplicane Tahsildar has categorically stated that no Patta was issued in respect of S.Nos.52/2(Part), 53/2 (Part), 54/1, 54/2, 54/3(Part) and 55/2, 55/3 and 55/7 [T.S.No.16] and that the lands stands in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Proceedings of Tahsildar dated 211. 2006 read as under:- The Town Survey Register issued by Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk also clearly shows that S.Nos.55/2(Part), 55/3(Part), 55/7(Part), 54/1(Part), 54/2(Part), 54/3(Part), 53/2(Part), 52/2(Part) have been registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Having regard to the said Proceedings issued by Tahsildar, serious doubts arise as to Chitta and Adangal produced by the Petitioner. Based on copy of settlement deed (containing Paimash No.580) and Chitta and Adangal allegedly issued by VAO, it cannot said that Writ Petitioners mother was the then owner. Absolutely, Petitioners case is not supported by any acceptable evidence. 9. Writ Petitioner has filed M.P.No.1/2009 to furnish copy of Town Survey Register, Patta, Chitta, Adangal Registers. M.P.No.2/2009 has been filed to furnish copy of Sec.4(1) notification in respect of 1.49 Acres. Absolutely, Petitioners case is not supported by any acceptable evidence. 9. Writ Petitioner has filed M.P.No.1/2009 to furnish copy of Town Survey Register, Patta, Chitta, Adangal Registers. M.P.No.2/2009 has been filed to furnish copy of Sec.4(1) notification in respect of 1.49 Acres. M.P.3/2009 has been filed to furnish title deed of Babu Gurukal in respect of S.No.54/1. Like wise, M.P.No.4/2009 has been filed to furnish title deed of Babu Gurukal in respect of S.No.52/2. M.P.No.5/2009 has been filed to furnish copy of Sec.6 Declaration. M.P.No.6/2009 has been filed to furnish copy of title deed of C.R.Narayana Rao in respect of S.No.53/2. All the documents which the Writ Petitioner seeks production are public documents which Writ Petitioner himself ought to have applied and obtained copies and produced the documents. Writ Petitioner cannot expect the Respondents to produce those documents to make out Petitioners case. However, Tamil Nadu Housing Board in fairness, has produced the following documents viz., (1) Sec.4(1) Notification dated 24.01.1962; (2) Sec.6 Declaration dated 01.05.1963; (3) Award No.10/64 dated 30.05.1964; (4) Award No.8/66 dated 08. 1966; (5) Note explaining the revised Award No.4/73 dated 14. 1973 and (6) Extract of A Register. The documents produced by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board amply strengthens acquisition and alienation of acquired lands in favour of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. After due compliance of procedure, lands were acquired and by G.O.Ms.No.1324 Revenue Department dated 07. 1968, the lands were alienated to Housing Board. Petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings nearly after four decades nor can seek injunction against Respondents restraining them from dealing with the property. 10. According to the Petitioner, ten years prior to the filing of Writ Petition, there were misunderstanding in the family and family dispute between himself and his brothers and also due to family circumstances, he shifted his family to Vellore for earning his livelihood and thereafter stayed in Vellore itself and only one year prior to the filing of Writ Petition, he shifted back his residence from Vellore and came to Chennai and he was shocked to note that several persons have encroached upon his lands in his absence. Writ Petitioner indirectly challenges the acquisition proceedings initiated and completed more than 40 years ago. 11. Petitioner has already made representation on 12. 2006 enclosing settlement deed – document No.2046/1957 dated 20.06.1957 and sought exemption of land in S.No.50/1. Writ Petitioner indirectly challenges the acquisition proceedings initiated and completed more than 40 years ago. 11. Petitioner has already made representation on 12. 2006 enclosing settlement deed – document No.2046/1957 dated 20.06.1957 and sought exemption of land in S.No.50/1. Later Petitioner has changed his request and submitted another representation dated 06. 2006 to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board stating that S.No.50/1 mentioned in the earlier representation dated 12. 2006 is wrong and the correct Survey Numbers are 52/2, 53/2, 54/1, 54/2 9Part) and 55/2, 55/3 and 55/7 and requested to exclude the lands from acquisition. Tamil Nadu Housing Board sent its detailed report to Government with a request to reject the request of the Petitioner stating that the entire lands were utilised by the Housing Board except a small portion of the land in S.No.54 (Part) and 55(Part) reserved for High School site. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that the said High School site was encroached by one T.D.Parasuraman by obtaining false Patta illegally and the same was cancelled by the Collector of Madras on 06. 1987 based on the complaint lodged by Housing Board. After obtaining necessary orders from the High Court, unauthorised encroachment of said T.D.Parasuraman was also removed on 05. 2003 and necessary conversion proposal for residential plots was got approved from the Government in G.O.Ms.No.263/HUDD (HB.5) dated 210. 2003. Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the lawful owner of the property for more than four decades. 13. Civil Suit No.1049/2007 has been filed by A.Thangaraj, one of the Power Agent of Writ Petitioner for Specific Performance. In the counter-affidavit filed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board, it is stated that the plaint averments in C.S.No.1049/2007 is to the effect that Power of Attorney executed by the Writ Petitioner has been cancelled. While so, it is not known how Writ Petitioner could be represented by the said Power Agent A.Thangaraj. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, Writ Petitioner has not stated anything about continuance of power of A.Thangaraj or otherwise. 14. Award cannot be challenged nearly after four decades. It is fairly well settled that when there is an inordinate delay in filing the Writ Petition challenging acquisition proceedings, Writ Petition cannot be entertained, in AIR 1997 SC 482 [Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "24. Award cannot be challenged nearly after four decades. It is fairly well settled that when there is an inordinate delay in filing the Writ Petition challenging acquisition proceedings, Writ Petition cannot be entertained, in AIR 1997 SC 482 [Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "24. In State of Tamil Nadu v.Krishnan, (1996) 1 SCC 250 : 1995 AIR SCW 4390, a Bench of three Judges of this Court had held that "the delay in challenging notification was fatal and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. "Exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution after award was made, was held to have been wrongly made. Delay to make award was not a ground to quash the acquisition proceedings. 25. In State of Orissa v. Dhobei Sethi, 1995 (5) SCALE 1881, it was held that on account laches on the part of the petitioners, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It was also held therein that the subsequent purchaser cannot raise any objection for the validity of the acquisition. The High Court was, therefore, held unjustified in issuing the writ and quashing the notification and declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 respectively. 26. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 (4) SCALE 98 : 1995 AIR SCW 3116, another Bench of three Judges directed dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches and held that the High Court had not judiciously and reasonably exercised its discretion in passing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 27. In The Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852 : 1992 AIR SCW 3460, a Bench of three Judges had held that mere retaining the possession or delay on the part of the authority to pass award are not grounds to challenge the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 and the laches was held to be ground to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition. 28. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition. 28. In Ramchand v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44 : 1993 AIR SCW 3479, another Bench of three Judges of this Court had held that because of inordinate delay in approaching the Court after entire process of acquisition was over pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6, the Court was not justified in quashing the same. Same view was reiterated in Bhoop Sing V. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414 : 1992 AIR SCW 1476; Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077 ; Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 2085 ; H.D.Voraq v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 22 SCC 337 : AIR 1984 SC 866 and Pt.Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar, (1980) 2 SCC 83 : AIR 1979 NOC 191. 29. It is thus well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. 15. The same principle was reiterated in (2003) 12 SCC 538 [Haryana State Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Limited and another v. Jain School Society]; 2007 (5) CTC 210 [C.Augustine Jacob v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others] and AIR 2000 SC 671 [Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others]. 16. by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others] and AIR 2000 SC 671 [Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others]. 16. Writ Petition filed challenging the acquisition proceedings nearly 40 years after passing of Award is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. At this distant point of time, there is no justification for the Writ Petitioner to call for production of documents and therefore, the M.Ps. filed are liable to be dismissed. 17. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. M.P.Nos. 1 to 6 are also dismissed. No costs.