Judgment : 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners are co-owners of the lands of an extent of 19.04 acres comprised in S.F.Nos.46/2, 47/1, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 73/1, 2, 3, 74/1, 2, 3, 76/1, 2, 3, 78, 79 and 89 situated at Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore. Till today, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The revenue records such as patta, chitta, adangal etc., stand in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners are regularly paying kists to the revenue Department. The petitioners further submit that in the year 1989, an extent of 280.36 acres of lands situated at Sowripalayam and Uppilipalayam Villages including petitioners' lands were subjected to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after called "the Old Act", by the first respondent, viz., the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme sponsored by the second and third respondents. 2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.196, (Housing and Urban Development Department), on 02.03.1988. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be made in G.O.Ms.No.287 (Housing and Urban Development Department) on 23.03.1989. The said acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an award in Award No.1 of 1991, dated 22.03.1991. Though the award was passed in the year 1991, till date the petitioners are not issued with any notice under Section 12(2) of the Old Act, which is required to be served on the lands owners immediately after passing of the award. The compensation amount for the said lands has neither been offered nor paid to the petitioners till date. The petitioners further submit that as stated above, an extent of 280.36 acres of land was sought to be acquired by the first respondent for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for a scheme known as "Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme". The said scheme consists of 5 blocks as detailed below:- 1. Sowripalayam-I - 43.19 acres 2. Sowripalayam-II - 46.99 acres 3. Sowripalayam-III - 69.75 acres 4. Uppilipalayam-IV - 61.82 acres 5. Uppilipalayam-V - 58.61 acres Total - 280.36 acres 3. The petitioners further submit that the petitioners' land is covered in block-1 comprising of 43.19 acres. The petitioners had challenged the above said acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.6453 of 1991. Sowripalayam-II - 46.99 acres 3. Sowripalayam-III - 69.75 acres 4. Uppilipalayam-IV - 61.82 acres 5. Uppilipalayam-V - 58.61 acres Total - 280.36 acres 3. The petitioners further submit that the petitioners' land is covered in block-1 comprising of 43.19 acres. The petitioners had challenged the above said acquisition proceedings before this Court in W.P.No.6453 of 1991. By order dated 24.04.1991 in W.P.M.P.No.9923 of 1991, this Court was pleased to pass an order of interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the "Old Act". The said order came to be continued by order dated 26.06.1991 and the same was in force till the disposal of the said writ petition. The said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 22.11.1991. Aggrieved by that order, the first respondent herein had preferred an appeal in W.A.No.393 of 1993. By order dated 14.02.1996, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the said writ appeal thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners with an observation. Thus, the possession of the subject land is continuously with the petitioners throughout the earlier proceedings till the disposal of the above said writ appeal. However, after disposal of the writ appeal, the fourth respondent did not take any steps to take possession of the land from the petitioners. 4. The petitioners further submit that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the lands covered under Block II of an extent of 46.99 acres were allowed to be lapsed due to non passing of award within the stipulated time. With regard to the lands of an extent of 69.75 acres covered in Block-III, the Government in its letter dated 18.01.1994, had withdrawn the entire acquisition proceedings due to high cost of the lands. Out of 61.82 acres of land covered in Block IV, except 4.60 acres, in the remaining lands, no scheme is taken up by the respondents till today. As far as the 58.61 acres of land covered in Block No.V, till date, no acquisition proceedings are even being initiated. The petitioners further submit that the subject lands were not taken possession from the petitioners by the fourth respondent and the land is continuously with the petitioners till date. As far as the 58.61 acres of land covered in Block No.V, till date, no acquisition proceedings are even being initiated. The petitioners further submit that the subject lands were not taken possession from the petitioners by the fourth respondent and the land is continuously with the petitioners till date. In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached the first respondent seeking to release the land either by withdrawing the above said acquisition proceedings or by transferring the land by way of reconveyance by exercising their power under the Old Act. However, the first respondent has mechanically rejected the request of the petitioners by order dated 15.10.2009. 5. The petitioners have challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.2592 of 2012. By order dated 04.01.2013, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The said order is not the subject matter of appeal in W.A.No.201 of 2013 which is admitted and the respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession by order dated 19.04.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013. The said appeal is still pending before this Court. But strangely, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.2592 of 2012, the first respondent contended that with respect to 15.42 acres of land the possession was taken on 20.11.1991 and with regard to remaining extent of 3.62 acres of land, the possession remains with the petitioners. But on the date on which, the first respondent has claimed to have taken possession of the land i.e., 20.11.1991, the writ petition filed by the petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.6453 of 1991 was pending and the interim stay of all further proceedings granted on 24.04.1991 was in operation. The contention of the first respondent that they have taken possession of the land on 20.11.1991 is not sustainable since the interim stay of all further proceedings granted by this Court on 24.04.1991 was continuously in operation till 22.11.1991. For the purpose of that case, the first respondent claimed that they have taken possession on 20.11.1991, but without any document to substantiate the same. 6. The petitioners further submit that in W.P.No.2592 of 2012, the respondents 1, 3, and 4 did not produce any document, evidencing taking possession of the lands from the petitioners. For the purpose of that case, the first respondent claimed that they have taken possession on 20.11.1991, but without any document to substantiate the same. 6. The petitioners further submit that in W.P.No.2592 of 2012, the respondents 1, 3, and 4 did not produce any document, evidencing taking possession of the lands from the petitioners. The entire subject land is still in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, though the respondents 1, 2, and 4 claimed that only with respect to 3.62 acres of land, the possession of land was not taken from the petitioners. Till today, the petitioners are in physical possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 19.04 acres of land. The petitioners further submit that though the respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.No.2592 of 2012 have stated that they took possession of the lands of an extent of 15.42 acres of lands from the petitioners on 20.11.1991, they did not produce any document to substantiate the same. Interestingly the respondents produced a certificate dated 20.11.1991 through the fourth respondent herein in the above said writ petition. From that certificate it could be seen that the Revenue Inspector working in the office of the fourth respondent allegedly handed over the subject land to the Surveyor working in the office of the fifth respondent on 20.11.1991, during the period, when the interim stay was in force. As such, the said certificate is not a document evidencing taking possession of the land from the petitioners. Hence, absolutely there is no document to show that the possession of the lands were taken by the fourth respondent or by the third respondent under Section 16 of the Old Act from the petitioners in the manner known to law. 7. The petitioners additionally added that in such circumstances, now, the Government of India brought in new Land Acquisition Act, in the place of "Old Act", viz., the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 / 2013), now onwards called the "New Act" and the same came into effect from 01.01.2014. 7. The petitioners additionally added that in such circumstances, now, the Government of India brought in new Land Acquisition Act, in the place of "Old Act", viz., the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 / 2013), now onwards called the "New Act" and the same came into effect from 01.01.2014. As per the New Act, if the physical possession of the lands are not taken or the compensation is not paid, in respect of the proceedings initiated under the Old Act, the entire proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the New Act. 8. In the language of Section 24, the Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: (a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply: or (b) Where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), in case of Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid in the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provision of this Act. Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Hence, in view of the New Act, the land owners are getting absolute right over the property." 9. The petitioners further submit that the stand of the respondents herein as stated above is that they are claiming that the subject property belong to them and as such, they can deal with the property irrespective of the fact that the possession of the property is still with the petitioners without any disturbance whatsoever. So far, the physical possession of the land is not taken from the petitioners by any of the respondents. The petitioners further submit that the revenue records such as patta, chitta and adangal are still standing in the name of the petitioners with respect to the subject land. Earlier the petitioners have done cultivation in the subject lands which was clearly reflected in the adangal extracts. At no point of time, the subject land is vested with the Government. Till date the Government is collecting kist for the subject land from the petitioners. The petitioners further submit that in view of fact that the possession of the subject lands are not taken by the respondents 3 and 4 as contemplated under Section 16 of the Old Act in accordance with law and the petitioners are in physical possession of the subject lands, the petitioners are entitled to seek for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have been lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the New Act. 10. The petitioners further submit that on 26.09.2012 they applied for certain information and documents with regard to taking of possession by the land acquisition officer from the petitioners. The public information officer on 03.10.2012 gave a reply along with documents. From that reply and documents, it is clearly evident that there is no document available to show that the possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Public Information Officer produced a certificate dated 20.11.1991 for handing over of possession to Tamil Nadu Housing board. Though the possession of the lands are not taken by the fourth respondent from the petitioners till date, the respondents herein are claiming that they are the owners of the property in view of the certificate dated 20.11.1991. However, the Public Information Officer produced a certificate dated 20.11.1991 for handing over of possession to Tamil Nadu Housing board. Though the possession of the lands are not taken by the fourth respondent from the petitioners till date, the respondents herein are claiming that they are the owners of the property in view of the certificate dated 20.11.1991. Hence, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of lands of 19.04 acres comprised in S.F.Nos.46/2, 47/1, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 73/1, 2, 3, 74/1, 2, 3, 76/1, 2, 3, 78, 79 and 89 situated at Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore belonging to the petitioners, as lapsed in view of the "Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013"(Act 30 / 2013). 11. The highly competent Senior Counsel, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy appearing for the petitioners submits that the first respondent had approved the proposal for acquiring the petitioners' land in the year 1988, for which, G.O. has been issued. Subsequently, gazette notification was given. The respondent had not served 4(1) notification on the writ petitioners. Further, the said land has been classified as cultivable dry land. Till now, the petitioners have been cultivating the said land without interference of the respondents. The respondents have neither paid the compensation amount for the said land nor was the possession taken by them. As such, the writ petitioners are entitled to get relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013, as the compensation has not been paid and possession had not been taken from the petitioners. The Village Administrative Officer has also given statement before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the petitioners are the owner of the property and they are continuously cultivating the same. Further, they depend upon the income derived from the land. 12. The very competent Senior counsel, Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy further submits that the petitioners have received information from the respondents under Right to Information Act, which reveals that the compensation amount, so far, has neither been paid to the petitioners nor offered to the petitioners. Further, it discloses that the possession was not taken by the respondents. As such, Section 24(2) of the New Act is squarely applicable to the instant case for getting remedy. Further, it discloses that the possession was not taken by the respondents. As such, Section 24(2) of the New Act is squarely applicable to the instant case for getting remedy. The acquisition proceedings have become lapsed as per the New Act. The learned Senior Counsel has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:- (i) PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN v. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183 "A. Land Acquisition and Requisition -Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Ss.24(1) & (2) - Lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where 'compensation has not been paid to landowners' and award was made 5 years or more prior to commencement of 2013 Act - Expression "compensation has not been paid" occurring in S.24(2) – "paid" - Import of -Deposit of compensation amount in Government treasury, held not enough - Held, for purpose of S.24(2) compensation shall be regarded as "paid" if compensation is actually tendered to landowners / interested persons, or, is offered to interested persons and on their refusal to accept the same such compensation is deposited in Court. - Expression "paid" used in S.24(2) includes deposit of compensation in Court, and cannot be limited to mean "offered" or "tendered" to landowners / persons interested, and neither can receipt of compensation by landowners/persons interested be inferred as the only meaning thereof - If literal construction is given to expression "paid", then it would amount to ignoring the procedure, made and manner of deposit of compensation in Court as provided in S.31(2) of 1894 Act, when landowners/interested persons refuse to accept compensation. In instant case, amount of compensation was deposited in Government treasury on 31.01.2008 which is not equivalent to "compensation paid to/persons interested" and award had been made more landowners than 5 years previously - Thus, subject land acquisition proceedings had lapsed." (ii) Raghbir Singh Sherawat v. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 792 "B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4(1), 6(1), 11 and 16 - Vesting of acquired land in Government - Taking of possession - Mode of - Principles reiterated - Actual possession not symbolic / possession on paper - Land with standing crops - Revenue record showing possession taken and delivery of land on which there were standing crops - Inference of "actual possession" in absence of notice to landowners, whether can arise - Held, possession of acquired land had not been taken - As crops were standing on several parcels of land including appellant's land, possession could not have been taken without giving notice to landowners - State has not produced any other evidence to show that actual possession of land on which crops were standing had been taken after giving notice to appellant or that he was present at the site when possession of acquired land was delivered - Hence, record prepared by Revenue Authorities showing delivery of possession of acquired land to HSIIDC has no legal sanctity. 23. The respondents have not produced any other evidence to show that actual possession of the land, on which crop was standing, had been taken after giving notice to the appellant or that he was present at the site when possession of the acquired land was delivered to the Senior Manager of HSIIDC. 23. The respondents have not produced any other evidence to show that actual possession of the land, on which crop was standing, had been taken after giving notice to the appellant or that he was present at the site when possession of the acquired land was delivered to the Senior Manager of HSIIDC. Indeed, it is not even the case of the respondents that any independent witness was present at the time of taking possession of the acquired land." (iii) PATASI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 503 A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4, 6 and 16 - Possession of acquired land - Burden of proof Absence of any evidence to show that actual or even symbolic possession of appellant's land and house constructed over it was taken by competent authority between 09.12.2009 i.e., date on which award was passed and 20.01.2010 i.e., date on which writ petition was filed, and the same was handed over to HUDA - Hence, impugned judgment dismissing appellant's petition solely on ground that it was filed after passing of award, unsustainable - Constitution of India -Art. 226 -Maintainability of Final orders. B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss.4 and 6 -Challenge to acquisition on ground of colourable exercise of power - Evidence showing that though notifications issued under Ss.4 and 6 recited that land was acquired for public purpose, but real object of acquisition was to benefit coloniser R-6 who wanted to develop the area into residential colony -Moreover, appellant's land was surrounded by land R-6 and earlier also land acquired for same public purpose was transferred to R-6 -Hence, acquisition of appellant's land was vitiated due to colourable exercise of power Acquisition quashed." 13. Further, the very competent Senior Counsel, Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy has produced adangal extracts in respect of the petitioners' lands which had been issued on 11.04.2014 by the Village Administrative officer of Vellakinaru Village. From the extract, it is seen that the petitioners are cultivating maize (Cholam). As such, it has been clearly proved through the competent revenue authority, who is maintaining the revenue records, that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the subject land, which is in dispute. 14. From the extract, it is seen that the petitioners are cultivating maize (Cholam). As such, it has been clearly proved through the competent revenue authority, who is maintaining the revenue records, that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the subject land, which is in dispute. 14. The very competent Special Government Pleader, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 submits that the first respondent issued G.O. for acquiring the lands of the petitioners and others for implementing the "Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme". Following the G.O., notification was given in the Government gazette as well as two tamil dailies. Thereafter, 5-A enquiry was conducted, in which, the landowners had participated and their statements were recorded. Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was published. Subsequently, the said land had been handed over to the third respondent under transfer certificate issued by the Assistant Grade Inspector to the Surveyor, who is attached to the third respondent's office. From that time onwards, the acquired land is under the continuous control and maintenance of the respondents. The compensation amount had been properly assessed and remitted in the concerned Court. Thereafter, the Housing Board has taken further process for implementing the said Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme. 15. The highly competent counsel, Mr.R.V.Babu, appearing for the second and fifth respondents submits that the 4(1) notification was published as per G.O. issued by the first respondent in the Government gazette as well as two Tamil dailies. Subsequently, 5-A enquiry was conducted. In the said enquiry, the petitioners have given statement stating that they have no objection in the acquirement of their lands. Further, the compensation amount had been properly assessed and the same was awarded. Thereafter, declaration had been published under Section 6 of the Act. Further, the notice had been served under Section 12(2) of the Old Act. Now, the second and third respondents are taking speedy action to develop the said land for Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme. Hence, a comprehensive lay-out plan had been prepared for an extent of 280.36 acres including the petitioners' lands. Now, the said lay-out plan is under process with the Town and Country Planning Department for approval. At this, stage, the petitioners' prayer is not maintainable. 16. Hence, a comprehensive lay-out plan had been prepared for an extent of 280.36 acres including the petitioners' lands. Now, the said lay-out plan is under process with the Town and Country Planning Department for approval. At this, stage, the petitioners' prayer is not maintainable. 16. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:- (i) The respondents had given Section 4(1) notification in the Government gazette on 02.03.1988 for acquiring the petitioners' and others lands in Sowripalayam Village in Coimbatore District for the implementation of the Housing Scheme under Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Subsequently, the said notification was published in the newspaper also. But, as of now the petitioners are in physical possession and in enjoyment of the same by way of continuous cultivation. The same was proved after production of adangal certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer stating that the petitioners are in occupation of the said land. (ii) The respondents had proposed the Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Housing Scheme for acquiring the petitioners' land on 02.03.1988, for which, a Government Order had been passed in G.O.Ms.No.196, (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 02.03.1988. As such, as on date, more than two decades have passed but the Uppilipalayam neighbourhood scheme has not been implemented and as such, there is a colossal delay for implementing the said housing scheme. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the said petitioners' lands are absolutely not necessary as initially mentioned by the first respondent, viz., the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai. (iii) As per the Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013, the writ petitioners are entitled to receive relief since they are in physical possession and actively pursuing continuous land cultivation without interference, from the respondents. Further, there is no documentary proof to show that the compensation amount has neither been paid to the writ petitioners nor offered to the petitioners. (iv) The Village Administrative Officer had given a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the petitioners are depending upon the revenue obtained from the cultivated land and in this arrangement for cultivation, one cannot obtain a transference unlike a neighbourhood scheme, where a site can be found elsewhere. As such, the original proposal of the respondents, viz., implementation of the neighbourhood scheme, will not be affected, if implemented elsewhere from the present site. As such, the original proposal of the respondents, viz., implementation of the neighbourhood scheme, will not be affected, if implemented elsewhere from the present site. (v) This Court's further view is that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents for implementing the Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme after acquiring the petitioners' land. The notification for acquiring the said land had been given in the year 1988, but as of now, the said land is under the possession of the writ petitioners. Even after a lapse of more than two decades, the respondents have not attempted to implement the scheme. As such, the inadequate planning of the respondents in initiating the Uppilipalayam Neighbourhood Scheme only shows that the scheme is neither important nor essential. Besides, there is an inordinate delay in putting into operation the said scheme, considering that the span of human life itself is limited. Further, it is evident that there is extensive administrative delay that had disturbed the petitioners' enjoyment rights for more than two decade. Besides this, the land acquisition proceedings of the respondents is creating a mode of encumbrance over the said property. 17. On considering the facts and current position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the records produced by the respondents and this Court's view listed above as (i) to (v), this Court allows the above writ petition and declares that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in lands of an extent of 19.04 acres comprised in S.F.Nos.46/2, 47/1, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 73/1, 2, 3, 74/1, 2, 3, 76/1, 2, 3, 78, 79 and 89 situated at Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore, has lapsed in view of the "Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013"(Act 30 / 2013). Accordingly ordered. There is no order as to costs.