Judgment : An extent of 3.61.0 hectares of dry land situated in Kethaiyarumbu, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, was acquired for a public purpose for formation of percolation pond under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Final notification under Section 6 of the Act declaring the acquisition was made by the Government on 30.09.1998. Thereafter, the possession of the land was also taken over and enquiry to determine the compensation to be paid to the land owners was taken up by the Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani. Finally he passed an award in award No.6/2000/A2 Roc.12846/96/A2 dated 31.08.2000. That award has become final. 2. Out of land comprised in 9 survey numbers acquired as stated supra, the lands comprised in S.Nos.472/2, 472/3, 489/1 and 489/2 belonged to the petitioner herein. The total extent of the said lands is 1.25.5 hectares. As per the award, a total sum of Rs.1,14,667.60/- was awarded in favour of the petitioner. Similarly in respect of other lands, award amount was fixed by the Acquisition Officer. Though the award was passed as early as on 31.08.2000, the award amount has not been paid to any of the land owners. The petitioner and the other land owners repeatedly submitted written representations to the Acquisition Officer and to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Acquisition Officer, in turn, had written several letters and reminders to the Secretary, Public Works Department for sanctioning the necessary amount to satisfy the award. All these efforts taken by the petitioner and the other land owners as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer evoked no response from the Government. While so, the petitioner rushed to this Court with this writ petition seeking a direction to restore possession of the lands to him and also for a further direction to the revenue authorities to restore the patta in his name. 3. This writ petition was filed on 01.11.2012. It came up for admission on 19.11.2012. The learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the respondents 1 to 7 and he took time to file counter. Thereafter the matter was periodically adjourned at the request of the learned counsel representing the respondents for one reason or the other like for filing counter etc. It came up for admission on 19.11.2012. The learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the respondents 1 to 7 and he took time to file counter. Thereafter the matter was periodically adjourned at the request of the learned counsel representing the respondents for one reason or the other like for filing counter etc. In course of time, on 03.09.2013, when this writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate took time to get further instructions from the Government. Accordingly, it was adjourned. On 02.12.2013, when the matter came up for hearing, since adjournment was asked for by the respondents, this Court adjourned the same by granting a last chance to file counter by the respondents. 4. While so, on 19.12.2013, the Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter. But the Government, represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department, did not file any counter. Having heard the matter, this Court listed the matter under the caption for orders. Then, when the matter came up for hearing on 27.01.2014, again adjournment was sought for by the respondents to engage the Additional Advocate General. Accordingly, the learned Additional Advocate General was engaged and the matter again came up for hearing on several occasions. The docket orders passed by this Court on various dates would go to show that this Court was not happy that the counter was not filed by the Government for two years. Finally, the Joint Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, filed a counter affidavit sworn on 21.08.2014. The matter was again heard by this Court in full. 5. At the outset, one question was posed with a request to the learned Additional Advocate General to answer. The award was made on 31.08.2000, whereas for the past 14 years, the award amount has not been paid to the land owners. The question was, 'WHY?' The learned Additional Advocate General took time to get further instructions on this aspect. 6. The Joint Secretary, Mr. K. Yashwanth Rao, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, the Executive Engineer, Mr. P. Thiruchenthilvelan and Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Mr. P. Palanichamy, Oddanchatram, the Revenue Divisional officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. A. Sundarraj, Palani, are also present. The records are also available for the perusal of this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in full. I have also perused the records carefully. P. Palanichamy, Oddanchatram, the Revenue Divisional officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. A. Sundarraj, Palani, are also present. The records are also available for the perusal of this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents in full. I have also perused the records carefully. 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is present before this Court would explain that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani/Acquisition Officer was not at fault and he is not responsible for the delay at all. He would submit that commencing from 26.09.2000, he was repeatedly sending several letters up to 06.02.2014 to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, calling upon him to take action for sanction of the amount so as to satisfy the award. He would further state that commencing from 13.04.2004 periodically he was writing letters to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department requesting him to sanction necessary amount to satisfy the award. He would further bring to my notice that he sent letters on 22.11.2009, 29.12.2009, 13.01.2010, 05.02.2010, 17.07.2010, 09.09.2010, 04.10.2010, 17.10.2013 and 07.02.2014 to the Joint Secretary, Public Works Department calling upon him to take steps to immediately sanction necessary amount to satisfy the award so as to pay the said amount to the land owners. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his counter stated that proposals were submitted to the Government for sanctioning the amount, but funds are yet to be sanctioned by the Government. It is also stated that the lands acquired have been utilised for the purpose for which, it was acquired. He has further stated that the request of the petitioner for grant of Rs. one lakh towards compensation for mental agony, loss of livelihood is not acceptable to him. Thus, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also produced his file, which vouches for the correctness of the statement made by him that he was addressing repeatedly to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department from the year 2000 and to the Chief Engineer from the year 2004 and to the Joint Secretary, Public Works Department from 22.11.2009 onwards. Thus, in my considered opinion, primafacie, I am satisfied that the Revenue Divisional Officer/Acquisition Officer has promptly discharged his functions. Nothing more could have been done except advice the Government for sanction of amount. 10. Thus, in my considered opinion, primafacie, I am satisfied that the Revenue Divisional Officer/Acquisition Officer has promptly discharged his functions. Nothing more could have been done except advice the Government for sanction of amount. 10. Now, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the procedure to be followed in getting the amount is a cumbersome one. He would submit that the proposal submitted by the Acquisition Officer was not routed through the Commissioner for Land Administration. Therefore, it was returned for being presented through proper channel. Again the proposal was submitted through the proper channel. But according to the office procedure, the proposal had to be forwarded to the Planning and Development Department and the planning and Development Department after passing certain orders had to forward the same to the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Secretary, Revenue Department, after passing certain orders had to forward the same to the Finance Department. The Finance Department had to again sanction the amount and forward the file to the Public Works Department and ultimately, after the above said exercise, the Public Works Department had to issue the Government Order sanctioning the amount. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that to follow this procedure, which is more cumbersome in nature, it took considerable time. The learned Additional Advocate General would also submit that in the process, some clarifications were to be obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer and other officials. Thus, in effect, the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the delay was unavoidable. However, the learned Additional Advocate General would be fair to submit before this Court that the Government will look into the entire matter to find out as to who were responsible for this unnecessary delay and the Government would initiate appropriate action against the officials concerned. This fair statement of the learned Additional Advocate General requires appreciation of this Court. 11. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, in his counter has admitted that award was passed on 31.08.2000 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani. He has further admitted that the lands acquired under this proceedings have been already utilised for the public purpose for which it was acquired. The Joint Secretary has stated in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 as follows: “4. It is submitted that after the award was passed in the year 2000 no correspondence was done at Government level. He has further admitted that the lands acquired under this proceedings have been already utilised for the public purpose for which it was acquired. The Joint Secretary has stated in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 as follows: “4. It is submitted that after the award was passed in the year 2000 no correspondence was done at Government level. Then, in June 2008 only the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, then Pollachi Region requested the Government to provide funds towards payment of compensation payable to the land owners. In July 2008, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, then Pollachi Region was requested to send proposal in consultation with Revenue department. However, a letter was sent to the Commissioner of Land Administration on 31.08.2009 calling for proposals along with his specific recommendations. 5. It is also submitted that generally proposals for compensation payable to the land owners will be sent by the respective District Collector through the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration. In turn, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration will forward such proposals to Government with his specific recommendations. In the instant case such proper channel proposal was received in Government, vide D.O. Letter No.M1/21008/2009, dated 24.08.2010 of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration. On receipt of the said proposal, the State Government in Public works Department initiated prompt action by consulting the advisory departments viz., P&D, Revenue and Finance, as it being the usual procedure to consult them. As per the requirement of the advisory departments, additional particulars were called for then and there from the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Coimbatore Region and the District Collector, Dindigul. The District Collector, Dindigul in his letter no.82475/96/E1, dated 08.07.2013 furnished the particulars required by the State Government thereby making the proposal to take full shape, recommending sanction of a sum of Rs.8,67,668/- towards the payment of compensation to the land owners including the petitioner herein, duly calculating interest upto 31.07.2013. After consultation with the advisory departments again, the Government in Public Works Department in letter No.22713/S2/2008-32 dated 07.05.2014 addressed the District Collector, Dindigul to furnish the details of the balance compensation amount available with him and the Chief Engineer, water Resources Department, Coimbatore Region to furnish the details towards land acquisition charges and the additional amount required towards payment of compensation. Subsequently the District Collector, Dindigul in his letter dated 26.06.2014 wrote to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Coimbatore Region, to furnish the above particulars directly to the Government. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Coimbatore Region, in turn, furnished the required particulars to the Government in his letter dated 06.08.2014. 6. It is submitted that the State Government in Public Works Department further examined the proposal after following the usual procedures like getting clearance from the advisory departments and other mandatory procedure and issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No.157, Public Works (S2) Department, dated 18.08.2014 sanctioning a sum of Rs.8,67,668/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Sixty seven thousand six hundred and sixty eight only) towards the payment of compensation to the land owners including the petitioner herein for the Acquisition of 3.61.0 hectares of lands in S.No.472/2, etc and 0.45.0 hectares of lands in S.No.680/2A3 for the formation of Percolation Ponds in Kethaiyarumbu village, Oddanchatram Taluk of Dindigul District with interest upto 31.07.2013. The dates and events right from the receipt of the proposal by the State Government till issuance of orders are separately annexed to this affidavit for kind perusal of this Court.” 12. The 6th respondent Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, has filed a counter wherein he has stated that inter alia in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 as follows: “4. It is submitted that the compensation for the said lands acquired have not yet been paid to the land owners since the funds are not sanctioned by the Government. It is submitted that necessary proposals for the sanction of the compensation amount with interest etc have already been submitted to the Government through the District Collector, Dindigul vide this office Na.Ka.No.12846/96/A2 dated 15.10.2007 and the District Collector, Dindigul vide his letter No.82475/96/E1 dated 25.05.2010 has submitted the proposals for the sanction of funds from disbursing the compensation to the land owners including the petitioner herein. 5. It is further submitted that the respondents more particularly Revenue Administration, the District Collector, Dindigul again by his proceedings dated 08.07.2013, forwarded a detailed calculated proposals. The period is calculated upto 31.07.2013 for depositing compensation amount are fixed. The above proposals has forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department to pass appropriate fund allocation in this proceedings. The period is calculated upto 31.07.2013 for depositing compensation amount are fixed. The above proposals has forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department to pass appropriate fund allocation in this proceedings. On the guise of the proposals it is relevant to state her the Government is likely to pass suitable Government order for allocation of funds to Treasury within the period of 2 months.” 13. Referring to this counter, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that though there has occurred some delay, the delay has been explained away and hence the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. In my considered opinion, this Statement of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted for more than one reason. 14. First of all, it should be noticed that though the writ petition was filed in the year 2012, even after knowing the relief sought for in this the writ petition, no action was taken to sanction the amount forthwith to avoid any more delay. In the meanwhile, “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (hereinafter after referred to as “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act”), has been brought into force with effect from 01.01.2014. Under section 114 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has been repealed. Sub Section 2 of Section 114 saves application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act of 1867 with regard to effect of repeals. 15. In respect of acquisitions, which have already been made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 24 of the Act contains mandatory provision. It states as follows: “24. 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 (1 of 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 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 provisions of this Act.” 16. A plain reading of Sub Section 2 of Section 24 would make it very clear that in the event compensation awarded under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had not been paid in a case where the award has been made five years before coming into force of the said Act, such acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed. This provision came to be extensively considered by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. Reported in 2014 (1) CTC 755. In that case, after having forensically analysed the scope of Section 24(2) of the Act, in paragraph No.21 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “21. The argument on behalf of the Corporation that the subject Land Acquisition proceedings have been concluded in all respects under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected at all in view of section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit at all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals 1894 Act. Sub Section (2) of Section 114, however, makes section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2), Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being subject to Section 24(2), there is no merit in the contention of the Corporation.” Thus, there can be no difficulty in understanding the scope of sub section 2 of Section 24 after the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said case, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where award under the repealed Land Acquisition Act had been made five years prior to 01.01.2014 and if the award amount has not been paid, then by operation of law, the said Acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed. This is a mandate of law. 17. Applying the said provision to the facts of the case, if we look into the facts, admittedly, the award was made on 31.08.2000, i.e., more than 14 years before the coming into force of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013. Admittedly, the award amount had not been paid till date. Therefore, by operation of Sub Section 2 of Section 24, the Land Acquisition proceedings by which the land of the petitioner and others was acquired has lapsed. 18. But the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that after the award of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.157 Public Works Department S2 Department dated 18.08.2014 sanctioning necessary fund to satisfy the award. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in terms of the award, due interest has also been calculated for the past 14 years and the amount has been accordingly sanctioned by the Government. He would further submit that the respondents are prepared to pay the amount even today to the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit, as a matter of fact, cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner is also readily available. He would further submit that if the petitioner is prepared, the respondents are ready to hand over the same to the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the land owners of S.No.489/3, 489/4A, 488/A1 and 538/2B2 have also, like the petitioner, declined to receive the cheques. Two other land owners by name, Chellammal and D.Mariappan have received the cheques on 20.08.2014. 19. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the land owners of S.No.489/3, 489/4A, 488/A1 and 538/2B2 have also, like the petitioner, declined to receive the cheques. Two other land owners by name, Chellammal and D.Mariappan have received the cheques on 20.08.2014. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not prepared to receive the said compensation, which is very meagre. He would further submit that by operation of sub section 2 of section 24, since the acquisition proceedings has lapsed, it is neither legal for the petitioner to receive the award amount nor legal for the respondents to pay the same to the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that if at all the land is still required for a public purpose by the respondents, it will be open for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings as provided in sub section 2 of section 24 for making a fresh acquisition. The learned counsel would further point out that if any such fresh acquisition is made, the petitioner will be benefited to get compensation based on the market value as it prevails now. The learned counsel would submit that the market value of the land has grown manifold and as of now, the land will cost few crores of rupees. Therefore, the petitioner is not prepared to receive the amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per sub section 2 of section 24, the land should be resumed to the petitioner and therefore, he would pray for a direction to this court for such a resumption of the land in favour of the petitioner. 20. I find every force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. By operation of sub section 2 of section 24, since the acquisition proceedings has lapsed, automatically, the title for the said land has again reverted back to the petitioner and in respect of the other lands to the respective land owners. When the title is with the petitioner, it may not be legal for the respondents to pay any amount as compensation as per the award, since the award itself has lapsed. Therefore, it is not justifiable on the part of the respondents to say that Government order was issued on 18.08.2014 and the respondents are prepared to pay the compensation amount to satisfy the award, which stands lapsed. Therefore, it is not justifiable on the part of the respondents to say that Government order was issued on 18.08.2014 and the respondents are prepared to pay the compensation amount to satisfy the award, which stands lapsed. Neither it will be justified on the part of this Court to compel the petitioner to receive the compensation amount, as it is offered today by the respondents. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only option now available with the respondents is to initiate a fresh proceedings, if so advised, to acquire the land in question and then to determine the amount of compensation to be paid by passing an appropriate award. Except this option, in my considered opinion, the respondents have no other option. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, as stated in his affidavit, that the petitioner has been put to lot of mental agony for all these 18 years. Admittedly, the land was acquired in the year 1996 and possession was also taken soon thereafter. The petitioner has parted away with the land 18 years ago as he had lost his title also by virtue of the acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though he was repeatedly making representations to several authorities including the Government, all the authorities did not even show any concern for the petitioner's grievances. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was put to irreparable loss and mental agony and sufferings, for which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have to pay compensation. In my considered opinion, the petitioner deserves for atleast cost from the respondents for their lethargic as well as indifferent attitude, which they have shown for 18 years. 22. I invited the learned Additional Advocate General to make his submissions regarding this claim made by the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since the delay was unavoidable and not wanton the respondents are not liable to pay any costs. This argument cannot be accepted at all. The delay is not for a minimal period. It spreads to 18 years. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since the delay was unavoidable and not wanton the respondents are not liable to pay any costs. This argument cannot be accepted at all. The delay is not for a minimal period. It spreads to 18 years. Though it is stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that issuance of Government Order involves a cumbersome process involving several departments, I do not think that it would take for the Government to pass order in this petty matter by taking 18 long number of years. This Court has not seen such a long delay in payment of compensation except in few cases. Therefore, this explanation of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted and therefore, I am inclined to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department to the petitioner. 23. Not stopping with that, this Court has to say something more about the conduct of the officials, who are involved in this case. As has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, there are several departments involved in this. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the officials, who were responsible for this delay are to be identified and accordingly, the Government shall deal them departmentally. This is a very serious matter where the Government should take action against the officials, who are responsible for this delay, irrespective of the position of the officials, whether high or low. Had the compensation amount been paid to the petitioner within a reasonable time, all these problems would not have come. The petitioner had to toil much on one side, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, had to toil on the other side by writing repeatedly, but the file was kept pending elsewhere in the Government departments, in the Secretariat for 18 years without any response. Had atleast prompt action been taken immediately after service of notice in this writ petition in the year 2012, compensation would have been paid in 2012 or atleast in 2013, in which case, the Land Acquisition would not have lapsed. In such an event, the Government would not have incurred huge loss. Now after coming into force of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on 01.01.2014, now the land acquisition has lapsed. In such an event, the Government would not have incurred huge loss. Now after coming into force of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, on 01.01.2014, now the land acquisition has lapsed. Secondly, if the Government decides to acquire the same lands again, then compensation is to be paid as per the present market value. Earlier, the compensation fixed was only Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare. Now, undoubtedly, the market value would have escalated manifold. As claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, escalation is by atleast by 10 times, which means in the event of fresh acquisition, the Government may have to shell out a few crores of rupees to the land owners. This loss to the Government Exchequer is because of the officials, who were responsible for the delay in allowing the proceedings to lapse. The Government officials, who are called as public servants should always remind themselves that they are paid salary out of the tax collected from the general public including the poor people and therefore, they should discharge their duties diligently so as to ensure that the welfare measures floated by the Government reach the people promptly and that unnecessary expenditure or loss is not caused to the Government Exchequer. 24. In this case, because of the officials' lethargic attitude, the Government has to incur huge loss and therefore, I have to issue a direction to the Government to initiate appropriate action against the officials concerned irrespective of their position, whether it be a clerk or the Secretary to Government, in accordance with the departmental rules. I hope that this judgment will atleast send a proper message to the Government servants, who at times, show lethargy in their official discharge of functions, so that they could correct themselves in future. 25. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) It is declared that the land acquisition proceedings including the award under award No.6/2000/A2 passed by the Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani on 31.08.2000 has lapsed. (ii) If so advised, there can be a fresh proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu to acquire these lands as clarified in sub section 2 of section 24 of “The Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”. (ii) If so advised, there can be a fresh proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu to acquire these lands as clarified in sub section 2 of section 24 of “The Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”. (iii) It is further directed that if the Government decides not to initiate fresh proceedings to acquire these lands, the respondents shall restore possession of the lands to the respective land owners including the petitioner. (iv) It is further directed that the Government shall take a decision as to whether to initiate a fresh proceedings for acquisition or not, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) It is further directed that in the event the Government decides not to acquire the land, from the date of such decision, the lands shall be restored to the petitioner within another four months. (vi) The second respondent/Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupess twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) It is further directed that the Government shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the officials, who were responsible for the delay of 18 years in passing the Government order irrespective of their position, be it a clerk or the Secretary to Government. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.