Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The Petitioner submits that he is the owner of the land situated in Survey Nos.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1,102/1 and 102/3 of Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, to an extent of nearly 16 acres and he is in possession of the said lands and doing agriculture. In the year 1981, the Secretary to Government, who is attached to the Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development had issued notification to acquire his lands for housing purpose. Against the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Ms.No.1470 dated 26.10.1983, Housing Urban Development, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3504 of 1995, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. As per the interim order he was in continuous possession of the property. After notice to the respondents, the main writ petition was taken up for hearing on 26.11.1991 and the notification for acquisition by the Government was quashed by this Court on 26.11.1991. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, no writ appeal was filed either by the Government or the other respondents. 2. The petitioner additionally added that the 2nd respondent passed an order in proceedings in M.T.R.No.739/98-99, dated 29.09.1998 and issued a patta in his name. The Patta pass book was also issued to him by the 2nd respondent/Taluk Tahsildar in 10.07.2000 in patta pass book No.091665. Thereafter, he had sold a portion of the land in Survey No.95/1 (part) to the extent of 10.30 acres to the third parties. On 21.04.2006, the 2nd respondent in proceedings Mu.Mu.9005/2006.A8, have issued a no objection certificate in respect of his land in Survey Nos.95/1, 101/1, 102/1, stating that the above lands are not subject to any land acquisition proceedings. He is paying kist regularly and in all the Revenue records his name is entered as the owner of the property. That being the 3rd respondent/Housing Board, had issued a notification in the press which was published in the “Dinamalar Daily” dated 26.11.2007 stating that the lands described in the above notification is involved in the Land Acquisition proceedings and the General Public are advised not to enter into any dealings with the above landed properties. 3. The petitioner additionally added that in the above notification his lands in Survey Nos.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1, 102/1 and 102/3 of Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore North, were also included. 3. The petitioner additionally added that in the above notification his lands in Survey Nos.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1, 102/1 and 102/3 of Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore North, were also included. In the notification, the publishing authority's name is not found, hence he made a request to the Coimbatore Housing Board on 16.10.2008 under the Right to Information Act, requesting to furnish the details of publication of notification dated 26.11.2007. In reply dated 31.10.2008, the information relation Officer of the 3rd respondent admitted that the notification was issued from the office of the 3rd respondent/Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he also enclosed the covering letter in letter No.LA4/7700/05, dated 21.11.2007 of the 3rd respondent to the Sub Registrar. Hence the notification dated 26.11.2007 was issued by the 3rd respondent. Against the notification of the 3rd respondent dated 26.11.2007 he is filing this writ petition and challenging the same. 4. The 3rd respondent namely Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed a counter statement and resisted the above writ petition. This respondent stated that the Executive Engineer and the Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, has requested the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for the Acquisition of 566.69 acres of land in Veerakeralam Village and Vadapatty Village in Coimbatore Taluk, for construction of houses, under Anna Nagar Neighbour Hood Scheme. The lands to be acquired have been formed into 16 convenient blocks. The S.F.No.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1,102/1 and 102/3 of Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, covered by this writ petition comes under block VIII, covering an extent of 50.78 acres. The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1080 HUDD, dated 09.12.1981 and Government has published a supplement to part II section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 06.01.1982 as notification No.II (21)/HOU/23/82. 5. This respondent further submits that as per the Land Acquisition Act under section 5A, enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (Housing Scheme, Unit-III), Coimbatore, on 21.04.1982 and 22.04.1982 after observing the usual formalities and also after publication and serving of required notice on the notified persons in accordance with the rules. As per the Land Acquisition Act, under section 5A enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (Housing Scheme, Unit III), Coimbatore on 21.04.1982 and 22.04.1982 after observing the usual formalities and also after publication and serving of required notice on the notified persons in accordance with the rules. As per the Land Acquisition Act, under section 5A enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (Housing Scheme, Unit III), Coimbatore on 21.04.1982 and 22.04.1982 after observing the usual formalities and also after publication and serving of required notice on the notified persons in accordance with the rules. The Government after considering the objections raised by the land owners at the time of 5(A) enquiry had overruled the objections and approved the draft declaration 6 in G.O.Ms.No.1470 HUDD dated 06.10.1983 and published at page 3 and 4 of the supplement to part III Section 2, of TNGG No.41.C as notification No.II (L)/HOU/6300/83. 6. He submits that after publication of aforesaid Notices under section 9(3) and 10 were served on the land owners and interested persons and their objections were obtained. Notices under 9(1) and 10 were obtained. Notice under 9(1) and 10 were published and necessary certificates were also obtained. Award enquiry under section 11 of Land Acquisition Act was conducted by the L.A.O. on 18.07.1988, at the office of Special Tahsildar (LA) Housing Scheme No.III, Collectorate, Coimbatore. Finally, award was passed in Award No.5/88, dated 10.10.1988 by the Land Acquisition Officer. Frequently court cases are filed by the land owners, hence the possession of the lands could not be handed over by the Land Acquisition Officer. The above writ petition was filed by the petitioner as against award pronounced. The total compensation amount of Rs.18,41,837/- has been deposited in Court for the above extent. 7. He submits that as per Award No.5/95, it is found that the owners of S.F.No.95/1, 96, 97, 101/1 and 102/1 are K.Eswaran and others and the S.F.No.102/3 belonged to K.Eswaran, Subbia Gounder and others. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development issued notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved in G.O.Ms.No.1080, HUDD dated 09.12.1981 and published in supplement part II section 2 of the TNGG dated 06.01.1982 as notification No.II(2)/HOU/23/82. The Government has approved the draft declaration under section 6 in G.O.Ms.No.1470 HUDD dated 06.10.1983. The petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.3504/85 and the High Court, Chennai, has allowed this writ petition by its order dated 26.11.1991, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is not a party in the W.P.No.3504/85 and Government has to file writ appeal in this case. 8. He submits that Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the requisitioning body. The petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.3504/85 and the High Court, Chennai, has allowed this writ petition by its order dated 26.11.1991, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is not a party in the W.P.No.3504/85 and Government has to file writ appeal in this case. 8. He submits that Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the requisitioning body. The 2nd respondent had issued patta pass book without consulting or informing the requisitioning body (i.e.) Tamil Nadu Housing Board and also sale transaction made by the petitioner. The possession of the land in survey No.95/1-part is illegal. The petitioner's contention in this para may be overruled and he submits that the No Objection Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent is not maintainable. The 2nd respondent has not consulted the requisitioning body (i.e. Tamil Nadu Housing Board) before issuing No Objection Certificate to the writ petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is an authority for issuing No Objection Certificate for the land proposed for acquisition. 9. He submits that as per the instructions of the Board, the 3rd respondent Housing Board issued a notification in the press which was published in Dinamalar Daily dated 26.11.2007, stating that the lands involved in the land acquisition. In the above notification the petitioner's lands in S.F.No.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1, 102/1 and 102/3 of Veerakeralam Village were included. The ex-land owners are trying to sell their lands, to the innocent public without informing Land Acquisition proceedings. To avoid such illegal purchases and create awareness to the public, the 3rd respondent had issued notification dated 26.11.2007, in the newspaper in the interest of the General Public Welfare. The notification is absolutely maintainable and not violative of any of the rules of Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the petitioner's contention in this para may be overruled. 10. He submits that the above publication of notification dated 26.11.2007 is maintainable and not violative of any of the rules of Land Acquisition Act. He submit that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is not a party in W.P.No.3504/19855, only the Government and Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition are the respondents in this case, they have to file writ appeal in this case. As per the amended section 22-A, of the Indian Registration Act, conveyance of properties belonging to the Government or local bodies can be registered only after obtaining a sealed No Objection Certificate from the appropriate authority. As per the amended section 22-A, of the Indian Registration Act, conveyance of properties belonging to the Government or local bodies can be registered only after obtaining a sealed No Objection Certificate from the appropriate authority. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the requisitioning body and the 2nd respondent should have consulted Tamil Nadu Housing Board before issuing the No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. But, he has not done so. Hence, the action taken by the 2nd respondent and the corresponding action taken by the petitioners are not maintainable. The notification issued by the 3rd respondent is constitutional, not arbitrary or malafide and it is maintainable and not liable to be quashed. He submits that the land plan schedule for the Veerakeralam Village, which covered the lands under Land Acquisition including the petitioner's land was approved by the Board Office, Chennai and award was passed for the petitioner's land in award No.5/88. Based on the above documents the 3rd respondent has included the petitioner's land. The competent authority for issuing No Objection Certificate is either by Secretary to Government, HUDD or Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Requisitioning body supervisor). The No Objection Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar) is not maintainable. 11. He further submits that the petitioner's lands in the above said S.f.Nos. 95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1, 102/1 and 102/3 and 4(1) notification was approved by Government in G.O.Ms.No.1080 HUDD, dated 09.12.1981 and under section 6 D.D was approved by Government in G.O.M.S.No.1470 HUDD dated 06.10.1983. Award was passed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Housing scheme in Award No.5/88, dated 10.10.1988 and Rs.18,41,837/- has been deposited in the Sub Court for the Petitioner's land S.F.No.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1, 102/1 and 102/3 in Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore. 12. This respondent further submits that in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Industrial Development Investment Company Private Limited and others ( AIR 1997 SC 482 ) and their Lordship of the Hon’ble Apex Court held. Where no objection was raised by the claimants against the proposed scheme for acquisition of land and the award became final and possession was also taken, the writ petition filed thereafter challenging the acquisition of land was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Where no objection was raised by the claimants against the proposed scheme for acquisition of land and the award became final and possession was also taken, the writ petition filed thereafter challenging the acquisition of land was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. When there in inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has no doubt discretionary powers under article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6. But it should not exercise its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. “The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. In such a case, it could not be said by claimants that they did not know of proposed scheme when it was duly published in newspapers by authorities as provided by Bombay Act. In this case, the award No.5/88, was pronounced on 10.10.1988, when such is the factual and legal position that the writ petitions were filed after the award was passed. 13. He further submits that the notifications published under section 4(1) and 6 of the act are all constitutional not arbitrary or malafide and they are maintainable and not liable to be quashed for the reasons narrated above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Tamil Naduj and others Vs L.Krishnan and others (SCC 250) has held that the mentioning of the public purpose as the Housing Board Scheme did not suffer from vagueness and it did not vitiate the validity of the acquisition proceedings. 14. He further state that it is an open secret that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is acquiring lands only for construction of houses for all categories of people in the society in the interest of public without any profit motive. The lands of the writ petitioner can not be excluded and no objection certificate could not be issued to the petitioner's lands, since these lands are absolutely necessary for a comprehensive housing schemes and since the award was already passed in this case. The lands of the writ petitioner can not be excluded and no objection certificate could not be issued to the petitioner's lands, since these lands are absolutely necessary for a comprehensive housing schemes and since the award was already passed in this case. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the above writ petition. 15. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that: (i) Immediately in the year 1985, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3504 of 1985, the entire acquisition proceedings in so for as the petitioner lands are concerned. The above writ petition was admitted and ordered notice to the respondents pending disposal of the above writ petition, the 1st respondents pending disposal of the above writ petition, the 1st respondent passed an award on 10.10.1988. However, the award amount was not paid to the petitioner. Since, the writ petition was pending disposal, the same was deposited in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. (ii) The above writ petition filed in W.P.No.3504 of 1985 came up for hearing on 26.11.1991 and the writ petition was allowed and the entire Land Acquisition proceedings were set aside. Though the land acquisition proceedings were set aside by this Court by an order dated 26.11.1991, till date no writ appeal was filed against the orders passed in W.P.No.3504 of 1985. Thus the orders passed by this Court, in the above writ petition in W.P.No.3504 of 1985, dated 26.11.1991 became final and binding on the parties to the above writ petition. (iii) He states that he continues to be in possession of the property even during the pendency of the writ petition in W.P.No.3504 of 1985. After the disposal of the above writ petition the possession of the petitioner, become legal, since the respondents have no right over his property. (iv) He states that since the land acquisition proceedings were set aside by this Court became final and he made a request to the 2nd respondent to delete the entry which was in the name of the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 29.09.1988 removed the name of the 3rd respondent and entered his name in all the Revenue Records. Since he was in continued possession without any encumbrance, the 2nd respondent issued Patta in his name. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 29.09.1988 removed the name of the 3rd respondent and entered his name in all the Revenue Records. Since he was in continued possession without any encumbrance, the 2nd respondent issued Patta in his name. (v) He states that neither the 3rd respondent nor the Government have any legal right over his property. The 2nd respondent to issue the No Objection Certificate. After perusing the revenue records finding that the petitioner alone has the right over the property, the 2nd respondent issued a No Objection Certificate on 21.04.2006. Separate Pattas were issued in the name of the petitioner on 30.01.2008 by the 2nd respondent. While so, the 3rd respondent on 21.11.2007, wrote to the Sub Registrar, Coimbatore, not to register any document pertaining to the petitioner's land and on 26.11.2007, the 3rd respondent issued a notification which was published in the Tamil Daily, warning the general public not to purchase the above said lands, stating that the above land belongs to the 3rd respondent. (vi) He states that the 3rd respondent have no legal authority over the property of the petitioner. After the land acquisition proceedings were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.3504 of 1985 by an order dated 26.11.1991, the 3rd respondent cannot be issued any notification in respect of the petitioner's land. He submits that the compensation amount deposited by the Government was withdrawn after the land acquisition proceedings were seide by this Court. (vii) He states that even otherwise the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government was lapsed by applying section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. He states that the 4(1) notification was issued on 09.12.1981 and the declaration under section 6 was issued on 06.10.1983. By applying section 11A of the Act, the award should have been passed within a period of two years from the date of the 6th declaration. However, the award was passed only on 10.10.1988 after the lapse of five years. Hence, the entire land acquisition proceedings became lapsed naturally by applying section 11A of the Act. By applying section 11A of the Act, the award should have been passed within a period of two years from the date of the 6th declaration. However, the award was passed only on 10.10.1988 after the lapse of five years. Hence, the entire land acquisition proceedings became lapsed naturally by applying section 11A of the Act. (viii) He states that though the Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year of 1981, so far the lands were not utilized for any purpose for the past 33 years and he states that even assuming the possession of the land taken over by the 3rd respondent by applying section 101 of the New Act (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) if the land is unutilized, the lands should be returned to the original owners. (ix) However, in this case admittedly it was not utilized by the 3rd respondent and even the possession was not taken over and the entire Land Acquisition proceedings had come to an end on 26.11.1991 when my writ petition in W.P.No.3504 of 1985 was allowed setting aside the Land Acquisition Proceedings. 16. The highly competent counsel Mr. S. Doraisamy, submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is involved in agricultural operation in his landed property situated in Survey Nos.95/1, 101/1, 102/1. Further the Tahsildar, who is attached to the Coimbatore North Taluk/2nd respondent herein had issued a no objection certificate on 21.04.2006 and for freedom from acquisition proceedings on the basis of this Court's order passed in W.P.No.3504 of 1985. The very competent counsel further submits that the same respondent herein had issued notification in the year of 1981 for acquiring the same land and also issued a declaration publication under section 6 of the Act as per G.O.Ms.No.1470 HUDD dated 26.10.1986. The said acquisition proceedings was quashed. Thereafter the respondent has issued another notification for acquiring the said land as an afterthought. Further the compensation was deposited in the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, but the same was not received by the petitioner. The earlier notification issued by the respondents for the same purpose was quashed by this Court on 26.11.1991. The said acquisition proceedings was quashed. Thereafter the respondent has issued another notification for acquiring the said land as an afterthought. Further the compensation was deposited in the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, but the same was not received by the petitioner. The earlier notification issued by the respondents for the same purpose was quashed by this Court on 26.11.1991. Thereafter, no appeal has been filed against the said order, as such the petitioner's land is free from acquisition, hence, the Tahsildar had issued a patta and also a no objection certificate in order to enjoy the said property. 17. The highly competent counsel further submits that the Judicial order is inforce passed in W.P.No.3504 of 1985, dated 26.11.1991, as such the respondents cannot issue a similar notification for acquiring the said land for the same purpose. The respondent had issued an earlier notification in the year of 1981 and the same was published in the Government Gazette, in the year 1982. Thereafter, another notification under section 6 of the act was published stating that the petitioner's land had been acquired. The entire land acquisition proceedings had been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.3504 of 1985, dated 26.11.1991, while the writ petition was pending the respondents had passed an award 5 of 1998 dated 10.10.1998. After quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings the award passed by the respondents is also not valid. The petitioner is now possessing a meager portion of the land and cultivating the same for his family's livelihood. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 18. The very competent counsel Mr. R.V. Balu, appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the notification was published in the Newspaper, dated 26.11.2007, for acquiring the petitioner's land and also the lands of others for i.e., Anna Nagar Neighborhood Scheme. The 2nd respondent i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired to an extent of 566.69 acres for the said scheme including petitioner's land. The 2nd respondent after notification had conducted an enquiry under section 5A, thereafter a declaration was passed, as such the entire land had been acquired by the 2nd respondent herein. Finally, an award was passed and compensation amount to an extent of Rs.18,41,837/- has been deposited into the Court. The 2nd respondent after notification had conducted an enquiry under section 5A, thereafter a declaration was passed, as such the entire land had been acquired by the 2nd respondent herein. Finally, an award was passed and compensation amount to an extent of Rs.18,41,837/- has been deposited into the Court. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner had filed in W.P.No.3504 of 1985 was allowed by this Court, but the 3rd respondent is not a party in the said writ petition. The 3rd respondent is a requesting body as such the patta issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be binding on the 3rd respondent. After acquiring the said land in accordance with law and following the procedure, if the petitioner is in physical possession it is known as illegal position. The no objection certificate issued by the Taluk Tahsildar who is attached to the Coimbatore North Taluk, has no nexus in the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, the patta and no objection certificate issued by the regular Tahsildar is not maintainable since the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated by the Special Tahsildar/Land Acquisition Officer/1st respondent herein. 19. The highly competent counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent had issued notification in the Dinamani Newspaper on 26.11.2007 and causing public awareness to the erstwhile land owners not to purchase or alienate the acquired lands by the respondents. Therefore, the above writ petition is not maintainable. Since, the lands have been acquired for the public purpose i.e., for a neighborhood scheme. 20. The very competent Special Government Pleader Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan, appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents submits that as per the Government Order and the petitioners land and the land of others have been acquired by the 1st respondent who in turn assigned the land to the Housing Board who is the requesting body for forming of a Neighborhood Scheme in order to provide house sites to the General Public which is essential. Therefore, the 1st respondent had acquired about 569 acres at Veerakeralam Village, including petitioner's land. Further the 1strespondent had strictly adhered to the land acquisition proceedings as per the act and completed the acquisition proceeding without any lapse and an award No.5/88 dated 10.10.1988 had been passed. Hence, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage, since the purpose of the neighborhood scheme is almost executed. 21. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr. Further the 1strespondent had strictly adhered to the land acquisition proceedings as per the act and completed the acquisition proceeding without any lapse and an award No.5/88 dated 10.10.1988 had been passed. Hence, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage, since the purpose of the neighborhood scheme is almost executed. 21. Per contra, the highly competent counsel Mr. S. Doraiswamy submits that there is no clarity in the acquisition proceedings i.e., date of filing the enquiry and what type of statements were recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer, besides when the petitioners land was taken by the 1st respondent and in turn handed the same to the requesting body i.e., the 3rd respondent. Further, the respondent had not sent any communication to the petitioner regarding the mode of compensation and quantum as well. As such, the acquisition proceeding is indicating a lacuna. The entire acquisition proceedings i.e., the Government Order had been quashed by this Court on 26.11.1991 in W.P.No.3504 of 1985. Therefore, the rest of the acquisition proceedings is running against this Court order. The very competent counsel further submits that as on date the petitioner had not been paid the compensation amount besides he is in physical possession and cultivating his land without any interference, the same was confirmed by the patta proceedings and no objection certificate issued by the 2nd respondent herein who is the competent authority to maintain the entire Revenue records of the petitioner's land, besides the 2nd respondent after a physical verification, the no objection certificate has been issued to avail the enjoyment of the said land. It clearly proves that the petitioner is in possession and also he has not received any compensation amount from the respondents. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to give relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013 which came into force on 01.01.2014. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides and on perusing the typed set of papers, the view of this Court: (1) The petitioner is in physical possession and cultivating the said land as per the 2ndrespondent's No Objection Certificate. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides and on perusing the typed set of papers, the view of this Court: (1) The petitioner is in physical possession and cultivating the said land as per the 2ndrespondent's No Objection Certificate. Further, the No Objection Certificate reveals that the petitioner's land had not been included in the acquisition proceedings, as a result he is in full enjoyment of the land; (2) The petitioner had not received any compensation for his land, as such he is in possession. As such he is entitled to obtain relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013; (3) Originally for acquiring the land the G.O. had been issued in the year 1981, the G.O.Ms.No.1080, Housing Urban Development Department dated 09.12.1981, as on date the Neighborhood Scheme had not been implemented that is after a lapse of 33 years, as such the 3rd respondent's purpose has become redundant. Since, no land owner would wait indefinitely for decades in a twilight zone. Hence, the above writ petition is allowed perforce and consequently, the 3rdrespondent's publication in “Dinamalar daily” dated 26.11.2007 is quashed in respect of petitioner's land in Survey Nos.95/1, 96, 97, 98, 101/1, 102/1 and 102/3 of Veerakerralam Village, Coimbatore North Taluk. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.