Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to hand over the land measuring 1.50 acres to the petitioner with specific boundaries in S.No.167/9 (sub-divided from S.No.167/1B) as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1867 of 1992 decided on 17.01.1996 (reported in 1996(7) page 450. 2. The reading of the prayer in the writ petition would show that the petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks the to implementation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1867 of 1992 decided on 17.01.1996 (reported in 1996(7) page 450. 3. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stands already complied with. The Gazette Notification dated 16.07.1996, issued in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: "NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT **** HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WITHDRAWAL FROM ACQUISITION OF LAND (Letter No.9158/UD III (1)92-4, Housing and Urban development, 16th July 1996) No.II (2)/hou/1465(D)/96 Under the sub-section (i) of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), the Governor of Tamil nadu hereby withdraws from acquisition of land specified in Notification No.II (2)/3459/75 (approved in G.O. RNo.221, Housing Department, dated 29th August 1975) published at pages 1 to 4 of Supplement to Part II-Section 2 and Housing and Urban development Department Notification Nos.II(2)/HUD/4996(b)/78 and II(2)/HUD/4996(C)/78 (approved in G.O.Ms.No.1381, Housing and Urban Development, dated 28th September 1978) published at pages 1 and 2 of Supplement to Part II-Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary issue, dated 29th September 1978 under section 6 of the said Act as being required for public purpose to wit for Housing Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. SCHEDULE Madras district, Egmore-Nungambakkam taluk, Koyambedu village Government dry S.No.167-9 (sub-divided from S.No.167-1B) belonging to Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and interested persons M.Nithyanandam, M.Poornachandran and seventeen others, bounded on the north by S.No.167-7, east by S.Nos.167-2 and 167-4 south and west by S.No.167-1B-1.50 acre or 0.60.5 hectare or 01.03.0540 caunnie. V.MANIVANNAN Secretary to Government" The petitioner claimed that the possession of land could not be taken from him without payment of compensation meaning thereby that the petitioner is in possession of the property, under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. V.MANIVANNAN Secretary to Government" The petitioner claimed that the possession of land could not be taken from him without payment of compensation meaning thereby that the petitioner is in possession of the property, under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Malik and others Vs Rakesh Batra (2005)13 S.C.C. 113 ) to contend, that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has binding effect under Article 144 and 141 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is not open to the High Court to pass any orders, after the matter stood adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The contention of the learned Senior counsel further was that even the State Government cannot issue any notification contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. This contention of the learned Senior counsel deserves to be noticed to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Malik and others Vs Rakesh Batra (supra), held that it was not open to the High Court to pass any order contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nowhere doubted the right of the State Government to acquire the land for public purpose, merely because the notification is quashed on an earlier occasion, with regard to public purpose, which was entirely different from the one now invoked. 7. On the earlier occasion, acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government was for housing scheme, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however a portion of land was exempted from acquisition. It was only a concession given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the State Government to exempt 1.50 acres of land in S.No.167/1B. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was complied with in letter and spirit by issuing notification referred to above. 8. In any case, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not mean that the State Government could not acquire the land even for public purpose of great importance, like Chennai Metro Rail Project, for which the land is sought to be acquired. 9. 8. In any case, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not mean that the State Government could not acquire the land even for public purpose of great importance, like Chennai Metro Rail Project, for which the land is sought to be acquired. 9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Goa Vs A.H.Jafar and sons and another ( (2008)11 S.C.C. 18 ) to contend that it is not desirable for the respondents to seek acquisition of land in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. The reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Goa Vs A.H.Jafar and sons and another (supra) is also misconceived. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case merely laid down that it is not proper and desirable on the part of the respondents to pursue their remedies before the Revisional Tribunal despite the stay order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it was not possible for the High Court to take a different view then the one taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment has no relevance to facts of the present case. 11. In the present case, it is not a case of different view being taken, but is case of acquisition that too not for housing scheme, but for Chennai Metro Rail Project which is a public purpose. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not bar the Government from acquiring the land by exercising power under the land acquisition Act. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is misconceived. 13. Even otherwise, this writ petition on the face of it, is not competent as it is not permissible for the petitioner, to seek possession of the land by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, as the State had complied with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by issuing notification cited above, by withdrawing from acquisition of land specified in Notification No.II (2)/3459/75. 14. The petitioner is fully aware of this fact as would be clear from the fact that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20769 of 2010 to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 15. 14. The petitioner is fully aware of this fact as would be clear from the fact that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20769 of 2010 to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of First Land Acquisition Collector and others VS Nirodhi Prakash Ganguly and another ( (2002)4 S.C.C. 160 ), held that mere fact that earlier notification under section 4 & 6 of Land acquisition Act is quashed, cannot be a ground to challenge acquisition by invoking urgency provisions. As already observed, the land of the petitioner is under acquisition for a public purpose, therefore petition to seek possession on the face is not competent. 16. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in the writ, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.