Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition was filed by Mr.Parasurama Vaidyanathan seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition-VI, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Anna Nagar, Chennai to handover possession and allot the 11 cents of land that was subjected to acquisition proceeding and comprised in S.No.390-1A measuring 5 cents and in S.No.390-2A1 measuring 6 cents totalling to 11 cents situate at Sholinganallur Village and execute necessary documents towards assigning or handing over possession of the same lands or alternatively directing the respondents to give to the petitioner any other piece of land situate within the same vicinity and value. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being an employee of Coal India Limited, at the fag end of his career, purchased 2 grounds of land in the year 1986 from out of his hard earned savings at Sholinganallur village for putting up a residence for his family. Subsequently, a patta was also obtained in his name. Since he retired from service in the year 1988, as he had to perform the marriages of his daughter and son, he could not construct the residence on the said piece of land. While in the year 1991 the State Government initiated acquisition proceedings for the benefit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, questioning the same a writ petition in W.P.No.3400 of 1992 was filed before this Court under Article 226. However, the writ petition was dismissed by holding that the acquisition proceedings were valid. Thereafter, the writ appeals filed by the petitioner and the other land owners also met with the same fate. But even after the dismissal of the W.A.Nos.228 to 230 of 1996 dated 7.3.96, the respondents had not passed the award even after a lapse of 8 ½ years from the date of dismissal of the writ appeals. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the prescribed time for making the award under Section 11-A is only two years from the date of declaration, the non-passing of the award within the said time limit would render the entire acquisition proceedings as lapsed. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the prescribed time for making the award under Section 11-A is only two years from the date of declaration, the non-passing of the award within the said time limit would render the entire acquisition proceedings as lapsed. Again by mentioning the relevant dates, it was pinpointed before this Court that even after excluding the period of stay granted by this Court, when the respondents have not come forward to pass the award within the statutory period, the entire acquisition proceedings should be held as lapsed, since Section 4(1) notification was issued on 13.6.90, Section 6 declaration was issued on 25.6.91, interim injunction in WMP No.4794 of 1992 was granted on 9.3.92, W.P.No.3400 of 1992 was dismissed on 26.9.95 and W.A.Nos.228 to 230 of 1996 were dismissed on 3.7.96. By indicating the above dates, it was again pleaded that from the date of dismissal of the writ appeals on 3.7.96, the respondents should have passed the award within two years from the date of Section 6 declaration viz., 25.6.91. As per Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, if the award is not made within the said time, the acquisition proceedings shall lapse. Further, it was also submitted that even during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner also filed another petition on 14.3.2007 seeking a prayer to direct the respondents to reserve two plots of land in his favour on the failure of the award being not passed even after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 11-A of the Act, for the reason that when the Housing Board had sold the developed plots to the general public for a sum of Rs.31 lakhs per ground, at Sholinganallur phase-III scheme, the said petition could not be numbered. Therefore, the learned counsel pleaded that by quashing the acquisition proceedings, a suitable direction should be given to the respondents to either reserve 2 plots of land equivalent to 11 cents of land i.e., 5 cents in S.No.390-1A and 6 cents in S.No.390-2A1, acquired from the petitioner or in the alternative to direct the respondents to allot any other piece of land. Finally, it was pleaded that when the Section 4(1) notification dated 13.6.90 followed by the Section 6 declaration dated 25.6.91 had specifically mentioned the name of the petitioner as the owner of the land in S.No.390-1A & 2A1, it was claimed by the respondents in the counter statement filed on 30.9.2009 that an award in Award No.3 of 1993 dated 28.6.93 was also passed in respect of the petitioner's land. But even that award also does not mention the name of the petitioner as Parasurama Vaidyanathan. Therefore, it was contended that when the name of the petitioner Parasurama Vaidyanathan has been shown in the revenue records as the land owner and admittedly the respondents also have shown correctly in the Section 4(1) notification followed by the Section 6 declaration and non-passing of the award in the name of the petitioner till date goes to show that there is no award passed, for the simple reason that when the name of the petitioner is Parasurama Vaidyanathan, even if they pass any award in the name of a wrong person, the petitioner cannot withdraw the compensation for the land wrongly acquired by the respondents by not following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the passing of the award in the name of a wrong person is as good as not passing the award in terms of Section 11-A of the Act. On this basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. In support of his submission, he also relied upon a few judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and contended that the acquisition of land without payment of compensation is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore the award should be held as a nullity. By relying upon the Apex Court judgment in A.P.Housing Board v. Mohd. Sadatullah and others, (2007) 6 SCC 566, he emphasised that the Apex Court has held that no land can be acquired without payment of compensation, no obligation, however, could be imposed on the land owner to handover vacant possession of the land, no order as to payment of compensation could be made subject to handing over of possession of the land by the owner, for such award could not be said to be an award contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. In another unreported judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.875 and 876 of 2009 dated 22.12.2011 (Nallammal and another etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and others etc.), he referred to paragraph-13 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that whatever be the dispute, a citizen cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law; the extent of the lands so acquired will have to be established and compensation in respect thereof has to be paid. While holding so, the Hon'ble Apex Court, he pleaded, has nullified the acquisition proceedings as improper, since the lands were acquired without paying any compensation. On the basis of the above submission, finally he prayed this Court that when the respondents had acquired the petitioner's land way back in the year 1990, even after 24 years from the date of acquisition, till date, no compensation amount has been deposited. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment will squarely apply to this case also. On this basis he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 3. In opposing the above said prayer, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents contended that in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner being the second round of litigation, the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to handover and allot 11 cents of land and also the alternative prayer are not maintainable either on facts or on law since the petitioner is guilty of laches. Further, it was contended that on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.3400 of 1992, this Court, by order dated 26.6.95, dismissed the writ petition. As against that, W.A.Nos.228 to 230 of 1996 were also dismissed on 3.7.96. The petitioner was enjoying the order of stay of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the respondents were not able to proceed further in passing the award. However, after the dismissal of the writ appeals, the respondents had passed the award in Award No.3 of 1993 dated 28.6.93. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no award was passed was not correct. The petitioner was enjoying the order of stay of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the respondents were not able to proceed further in passing the award. However, after the dismissal of the writ appeals, the respondents had passed the award in Award No.3 of 1993 dated 28.6.93. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no award was passed was not correct. It was further submitted before this Court that when the petitioner questioned the correctness of the Section 4(1) notification published in G.O.Ms.No.474, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.5.90, after the dismissal of W.P.No.3400 of 1992 dated 26.9.95 and W.A.Nos.228 to 230 of 1996 dated 3.7.96, the land acquisition officer had properly followed all the rules and regulations of the Land Acquisition Act. But unfortunately, the petitioner being the pattadar did not attend the award enquiry, because he has obtained stay order from this Court in WPMP No.4794 of 1992 on 9.3.92. When this Court had stayed the taking over of possession of the land and allowed to conduct the proceedings, the award was passed in time within two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the award was passed in the name of a wrong person. Even if it is presumed that the award was wrongly passed, the petitioner could have indicated the error committed in the award for rectification of his name by giving any representation. Such representation, on being given, could have been considered. But the petitioner knowing fully well about the passing of the award in the year 1993 in Award No.3 of 1993, deliberately kept quiet and filed the present writ petition only for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction to handover possession and allot the 11 cents of land to the petitioner with an alternative prayer to give any other piece of land situate in the same vicinity. Therefore, when the petitioner has not even challenged the passing of the Award No.3 of 1993 dated 28.6.93, his grievance cannot be accepted. It was further pleaded by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents that even after the passing of the Award No.3 of 1993 on 28.6.93, the entire amount for the land at Rs.10,147/-was deposited under Section 30 and Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Sub Court, Poonamallee. It was further pleaded by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents that even after the passing of the Award No.3 of 1993 on 28.6.93, the entire amount for the land at Rs.10,147/-was deposited under Section 30 and Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Sub Court, Poonamallee. Subsequently thereafter, the respondents had also taken over the land covered in S.No.390-1A measuring 5 cents and in S.No.390-2A1 measuring 6 cents totalling 11 cents and this was also handed over on 4.8.2010. After taking over the petitioners land in question, the said land also has been utilised by the respondents by properly converting the same as road to reach the nursery school built up for the children living in the vicinity. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner to handover the same land cannot be acceded to, as it is not practically possible to do so. Finally, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submitted that since the award had been passed and the award amount had been deposited in the Sub Court in the name of Tmt.Prashanti Vaidyanathan in order to avoid hardship to both parties, he requested this Court to pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation to the petitioner's land. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Prima facie, when the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.474, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.5.90 approving the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of 82.84.0 hectares of land in Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District for the implementation of Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioner's land comprised in S.No.390-1A and 2A1 was also acquired. After publication of the draft notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.II on 13.6.90, the same was also published in two Tamil daily newspapers, namely, Murosoli and Dinakaran on 16.6.90. Again the gist of the notification was also published in the locality on 2.7.90. Thereafter, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 5.9.90. After the enquiry, notice under Section 5-A in Form III was sent to the petitioner on 7.11.90. The objections raised by the land owners during the 5-A enquiry were also communicated to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes. Thereafter, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 5.9.90. After the enquiry, notice under Section 5-A in Form III was sent to the petitioner on 7.11.90. The objections raised by the land owners during the 5-A enquiry were also communicated to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes. However, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in his letter dated 3.1.91 informed that the lands notified in the scheme are essentially required for formation of a compact Housing Scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the objections raised by the petitioner were overruled, as a result, a direction was given to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3400 of 1992 questioning the acquisition proceedings, but the writ petition was dismissed on 26.9.95. Thereafter, W.A.Nos.228 to 230 of 1996 were filed unsuccessfully and they were also dismissed by order dated 3.7.96. It must be noted that when interim injunction was granted on 9.3.92, only a limited order of stay of taking over possession of the land alone was granted and the respondents were also allowed to conduct other proceedings. Therefore, the award was passed in time within two years period of the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the same was approved and locally published on 1.7.91 in Award No.3 of 1993 dated 28.6.93. When the award itself was passed during the pendency of the writ petition, unfortunately, the petitioner did not come forward to indicate the genuine mistake occurred in the passing of the award, when the award has been wrongly passed in the name of Tmt.Prashanti Vaidyanathan stating that she is the absolute owner of the land. When the Award No.3 of 1993 clearly mentions that the notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were served but the pattadar did not attend the award enquiry, since the pattadar obtained stay order from the High Court, Madras in W.P.No.3400 of 1992 dated 9.3.92, however, the High Court, while staying the possession of the land alone, has allowed the respondents to conduct the further proceedings, which shows that the respondents had rightly proceeded to pass the award. Therefore, the passing of the award dated 28.6.93 stating that the entire compensation is ordered to be paid to the pattadar could have been brought to the notice of this Court by moving appropriate application. But the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, failed to do so. Again when the record shows that the land in S.No.390-1A and 2A1 having an extent of 11 cents was taken over by proceedings dated 4.8.2010, subsequently, the said land also has been utilised by the respondents for laying a road to reach the nursery school. Therefore, when the land has already been utilised by the respondents for laying a proper road to reach the nursery school situated in the locality, the petitioner herein who has been all along fighting the matter before this Court by filing W.P.No.3400 of 1992 and W.A.No.230 of 1996 unsuccessfully, has come to this Court belatedly by filing the present writ petition in the year 2005 seeking a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents to handover possession of the land is absolutely unworkable for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner cannot plead that he was unaware of the order passed by this Court in WMP No.4794 of 1992 dated 9.3.92 granting limited stay of taking over possession of the land alone with further liberty to the respondents to conduct other proceedings. When this Court has passed an order directing the respondents to conduct the proceedings, the petitioner's non-participation in the proceedings shows that he was not prepared to abide by the orders passed by this Court. Secondly, the respondents, after completing the award enquiry, no doubt, has passed the award in the name of Tmt.Prashanti Vaidyanathan on the premise that she is the absolute owner of the land. However, when a mistake had occurred, nothing prevented the petitioner from bringing to the notice of this Court by moving an appropriate application for passing of the award in the name of the correct person. But the petitioner had not chosen to move an appropriate application during the pendency of the writ petition from the date of passing of the award viz., 28.6.93 till the dismissal of W.P.No.3400 of 1992 dated 26.9.95 or the dismissal of W.A.No.230 of 1996 dated 3.7.96. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the condonable mistake crept in the passing of the award. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the condonable mistake crept in the passing of the award. Thirdly, the petitioner, after the dismissal of the writ appeal on 3.7.96, kept quiet for about nine long years, without taking any steps to find out what happened to his property when all other interested persons had received the compensation in the same locality till he filed the writ petition in the year 2005. Therefore, the petitioner being aware of the award enquiry, cannot be allowed to challenge the award enquiry by filing the writ petition in the year 2005 with unexplained delay. 5. With regard to the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of A.P.Housing Board mentioned supra, no doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while emphasising the importance of passing of the award in favour of the land owner, has laid down the law that the acquisition of land without payment of compensation is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore if any award was passed belatedly, it was held that the said award was a nullity, for the reason that no land can be acquired without payment of compensation. In paragraph-30 of the judgment, it was held that though proceedings started in 1965 and the award was passed in 1971, no compensation was paid till the matter was decided by the High Court in 1988. In that context, it was held that the acquisition of land without payment of compensation is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore the award also was held as a nullity. But in the present case, the petitioner had already challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.No.3400 of 1992 and kept the matter pending along with the grant of limited order of stay. During the pendency of the said writ petition, on the basis of the liberty given to the respondents, when the award was passed, the respondents had passed the award in the name of Tmt.Prashanti Vaidyanathan. But the petitioner has miserably failed to bring to the notice of this Court the said mistake and for passing of the award in the correct name. Therefore, the above judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. But the petitioner has miserably failed to bring to the notice of this Court the said mistake and for passing of the award in the correct name. Therefore, the above judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. Moreover, when writ appeals were filed unsuccessfully, after the dismissal of the writ appeals on 3.7.96, again the petitioner did not take minimum care to rectify the simple mistake crept in the Award No.3 of 1993. Moreover, the petitioner deliberately waited from the date of dismissal of the writ appeal for about nine years. All these sinister strategies adopted by the petitioner clearly shows the oblique motive, therefore, this Court is not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner for the deliberate mistake and calculated plan made by the petitioner in filing the belated writ petition for release of the land. 6. Similarly, the reliance placed on another unreported judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.875 and 876 of 2009 dated 22.12.2011 holding that at no stretch of imagination the delay could be called as a deposit within reasonable time, cannot also be made applicable to this case, for the simple reason that this Court is not able to appreciate the callous reason offered by the petitioner for filing the writ petition with a huge delay of nine years from the date of dismissal of the writ appeals. Moreover, when the writ Court had already given liberty to the respondents to proceed with the award enquiry, the petitioner deliberately boycotted the award enquiry. Again when the award was also passed in the name of Tmt.Prashanti Vaidyanathan, during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, he has not even come forward to rectify the mistake by way of moving an appropriate application in the pending writ petition or by way of making any representation to the respondents. All these instances cumulatively picturise the conduct of the petitioner that he has come to the Court with unclean hands, therefore, he is disentitled to the assistance of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that apart, he is held guilty of laches. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. All these instances cumulatively picturise the conduct of the petitioner that he has come to the Court with unclean hands, therefore, he is disentitled to the assistance of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that apart, he is held guilty of laches. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. However, since the respondents had passed the award in the name of Tmt.Prashanti Vaidyanathan and the amount also had been deposited under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in a sum of Rs.10,147/-before the Sub Court, Poonamallee, the respondents are directed to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of award enquiry till the date of realisation to the petitioner viz., Mr.Parasurama Vaidyanathan within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.