Judgment : The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The petitioners are the co-owners of the lands of an extent of 0.29.5 hectares comprised in S.F.No.533/1 and extent of 0.34.0 hectares comprised in S.F.No.533/3, situated at Vellakinaru Village, Coimbatore. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property by regularly doing cultivation in their lands. The revenue records such as patta, adangal stands in the name of the petitioners till today. Originally, the above said lands were subjected to land acquisition proceedings along with other lands in that locality initiated 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 Scheme sponsored by the second and third respondents herein, viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director and the Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, who is attached to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Unit, Coimbatore. 2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.862, on 27.05.1991. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be made in G.O.Ms.No.327 on 15.05.1992. The said acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an award in Award No.5 of 1994, dated 23.06.1994. The petitioners consented to receive the compensation offered under protest with a request to refer the case before the competent Court to decide the enhancement of the compensation awarded. Till date the petitioners have not received any communication from the fourth respondent on their request for reference. Moreover, the petitioners were not paid the compensation. 3. The petitioners further submit that originally the first respondent at the instance of the respondents 2 and 3 sought to acquire a vast extent of lands approximately 500 acres at Vellakinaru Village for a scheme known as "Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Sceme" in the year 1982. However, till today, the respondents did not implement even a single scheme in that area since out of the total extent proposed for the housing schemes in relation to large extent of lands the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the High Court in various cases. Further, the Government itself has either excluded, dropped or re-conveyed the lands to the land owners as the housing scheme at Vellakinaru is not a feasible and viable one though the proceedings were initiated as early as in the year 1982. Further, the Government itself has either excluded, dropped or re-conveyed the lands to the land owners as the housing scheme at Vellakinaru is not a feasible and viable one though the proceedings were initiated as early as in the year 1982. The petitioners further submit that the subject land is still in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. Till date, no steps have been taken by the fourth respondent or any other officials to take possession of the land from the petitioners as the land is not required by them for any housing scheme for the reasons stated above. 4. The petitioners additionally added that in such a 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. The petitioners further submit that if the physical possession of the lands are not taken in respect of the proceedings initiated under the Old Act, according to Section 24(2) of the New Act, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have lapsed. Since the physical possession of the land is not taken from the petitioners by the fourth respondent after passing of the award and the possession of the land is still with the petitioners, the respondents do not have any right to proceed further under the Old Act. Moreover since their request for enhancement of the compensation awarded made at the time of award enquiry is not yet complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer by making a reference before the competent civil Court, the respondents have no right to proceed under the Old Act in view of Section 24(2) of the New Act. 5. Moreover since their request for enhancement of the compensation awarded made at the time of award enquiry is not yet complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer by making a reference before the competent civil Court, the respondents have no right to proceed under the Old Act in view of Section 24(2) of the New Act. 5. 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." 6. The petitioners further submit that in view of fact that the physical possession with respect to the subject land is continuously with petitioners without any interruption till date, the petitioners are entitled to seek a declaration since the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act has been deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the New Act. 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 an extent of 0.29.5 hectares comprised in S.F.No.533/1 and extent of 0.34.0 hectares comprised in S.F.No.533/3, situated at Vellakinaru 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). 7. The highly competent senior counsel, Mr.R.Thyagarajan, appearing for the petitioners submits that when the physical possession of the land is not taken from the petitioners by the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Collector under Section 16 of the Old Act in the manner known to law, in spite of the fact that the award was passed in the year 1994, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have lapsed. He further submits that when the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption till date, and the compensation is not paid, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the New Act. He further submits that in the absence of any material to show that the physical possession of the land was taken from the petitioners, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated under the Old Act shall be deemed to have lapsed. He further contended that in view of the fact that the reference sought for by the petitioners are not complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners' right to get fair compensation is denied by the respondent. In such circumstances, it has to be construed that the compensation is not paid in view of Section 24(2) of the Act. He further contended that in view of the fact that the reference sought for by the petitioners are not complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners' right to get fair compensation is denied by the respondent. In such circumstances, it has to be construed that the compensation is not paid in view of Section 24(2) of the Act. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has cited the following judgments:- (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." 8. The very competent Additional Government Pleader, Mr.S.Diwakar, appearing for the respondents 1 and 4 submits that the first respondent issued G.O. for acquiring the lands of the petitioners and others for implementing the "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. 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 control and maintenance of the respondents. The compensation amount had been properly assessed. Thereafter, the Housing Board has taken further process for implementing the said Neighbourhood Scheme. 9. The highly competent counsel, Mr.R.V.Babu, appearing for the second and third 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 Neighbourhood Scheme. At this, stage, the petitioners' prayer is not maintainable. 10. 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 27.05.1991 for acquiring the lands of the petitioners and others in Vellaikinaru Village in Coimbatore District for the implementation of the Housing Scheme under Neighbourhood Scheme. Subsequently, the said notification was published in the newspaper also. Further, it was contended that the respondents have followed all legal formalities and acquired the said land and also passed an award and also certified that the lands have been taken over by them on 22.11.1994. But, as of now the petitioners are in physical possession and in enjoyment of the same by way of 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 Neighbourhood Housing Scheme for acquiring the petitioners' land on 27.05.1991, for which, a Government Order had been passed in G.O.Ms.No.862, (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 27.05.1991. 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 Neighbourhood Housing Scheme for acquiring the petitioners' land on 27.05.1991, for which, a Government Order had been passed in G.O.Ms.No.862, (Housing and Urban Development Department), dated 27.05.1991. As such, as on date, more than two decades have passed but the 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 land cultivation without interference, from the respondents. Further, there is no documentary proof to show that the compensation amount had been paid to the writ petitioners or offered to them. (iv) The Assistant Revenue Officer handed over possession of the land to the Surveyor, who is attached to the Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Unit, Coimbatore, on 22.11.1994. But, on the strength of the said transfer certificate, it is observed that the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore, had not occupied the said acquired land. Therefore, the purpose for which the lands were acquired for neighbourhood scheme had been rendered redundant. (v) 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. Though the Assistant Grade Revenue Officer's transfer certificate dated 22.11.1994 reveals that the possession of the acquired land property has been handed over to the Surveyor who is attached to the third respondent office, the said certificate is nothing but a self serving document and as such, the acquisition proceedings of the respondents of the petitioners' lands are unfit for operation and hence, this Court declares that the respondents acquisition proceeding has lapsed. (vi) This Court's further view is that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents for implementing the Neighbourhood Scheme after acquiring the petitioners' land. The notification for acquiring the said land had been given in the year 1991, 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 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 decades. Besides this, the land acquisition proceedings of the respondents is creating a mode of encumbrance over the said property. 11. 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 and instruction filed by the respondents and this Court's view listed above as (i) to (vi), 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 an extent of 0.29.5 hectares comprised in S.F.No.533/1 and extent of 0.34.0 hectares comprised in S.F.No.533/3, situated at Vellakinaru 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.