JUDGMENT C.S. KARNAN, J. 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner submits that his brother M. Nithyanandam and himself are joint owners of dry lands measuring to an extent of 20.60 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1-B, 167/2, 167/5, 167/6 and 168 situated at Koyambedu Village, now in Ambattur Taluk. The said lands originally owned by his grandmother by name C. Chellammal, who expired on 24.02.1972 leaving behind a will dated 20.03.1971 bequeathing all her properties including the above said lands in favour of his brother M. Nithyanandam and himself. Even during the life time of his grandmother, a substantial portion of the land belonging to her was divided into plots and a layout plan was accordingly approved by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Chennai in Letter No. 5659/70. Se.Ma-3 dated 16.11.1970. While so, on 22.02.1983 three notices addressed to his grandmother C. Chellammal, his father B.C. Munirathnam Naidu and his brother M. Nityanandam were received from the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), stating Housing Board Schemes, Chennai-15 informing them that an award enquiry will be held on 29.01.1983. As his grand mother died by that time and his father and his brother were out of station, nobody could see the contents of such notices and a result of which nobody attended the enquiry. Another notice was received by his father in February 1983 about the holding of enquiry in respect of 18.01 acres of land. But the said notice did not contain the date of hearing. At about the same time, another notice was received by his father calling upon to vacate and deliver possession of land measuring 1.18 acres in S. No. 164/1 and 1.41 acres of land in S. No. 165 pursuant to award No. 1/83 dated 29.01.1983. 2. The petitioner further submits that thereafter his brother and himself made enquiries about the acquisition proceedings and they came to know that pursuant to Section 4(1) notification in G.O. Rt. No. 221, Housing, dated 29.08.1975 which was published in the Government Gazette on 01.10.1975, acquisition proceedings were initiated for the public purpose of developing Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part-II Housing Scheme by the second respondent and Section 6 declaration was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1381, Housing and Urban Development dated 28.09.1978 and award was passed on 29.01.1983. No. 221, Housing, dated 29.08.1975 which was published in the Government Gazette on 01.10.1975, acquisition proceedings were initiated for the public purpose of developing Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part-II Housing Scheme by the second respondent and Section 6 declaration was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1381, Housing and Urban Development dated 28.09.1978 and award was passed on 29.01.1983. The entire acquisition proceedings stood in the name of his grandmother, who died as early as 24.02.1972 and at no point of time, notice was ever issued to her either for section 5-A enquiry or for award enquiry. He further submits that as the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of lands belonging to himself and his brother are in the name of a dead person and the authorities concerned did not follow the statutory requirements in accordance with law in the matter of acquisition of the land in question, himself and his brother were compelled to file a writ petition in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983 before this Court challenging the entire acquisition proceedings and pointing out several legal infirmities in the conduct of enquiry, which could not cure the defects and the said writ petition came up for final disposal on 12.11.1984 and at that time, it was found that a batch of writ petitions like the one filed by himself and his brother were to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court and accordingly his writ petition also came to be listed before a Division Bench. Accordingly, his writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 22.04.1991 following the judgment of this Court in a batch of cases viz. W.P. No. 10351 of 1982 etc. dated 08.01.1988 on the ground that the Government of Tamil Nadu have excluded from acquiring the lands wherever sanction was obtained from the Deputy Director of Town Planning and Villivakkam Panchayat and that the lay out should be on the fringe of the scheme area without affecting the scheme. The said Judgment, however, was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 17.01.1996 in C.A. No. 19887 of 1992 but, however, excluding 1.50 acres of land in a continuous place towards the north east from the acquisition proceedings. 3. The said Judgment, however, was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 17.01.1996 in C.A. No. 19887 of 1992 but, however, excluding 1.50 acres of land in a continuous place towards the north east from the acquisition proceedings. 3. The petitioner submits that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, his brother and himself have bonafide belief that they would be heard by the respondent in respect of exclusion of land in respect of 1.50 acres as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and determination of compensation amount in respect of 19.10 acres of land as the award proceedings were in the name of a dead person and therefore, fresh award has to be passed after affording an opportunity to his brother and himself. But to his shock and surprise the first respondent has caused a publication of withdrawal notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition in respect of 1.50 acres of land in S. No. 167/9 in Koyambedu Village and remained silent with regard to payment of compensation in respect of 19.10 acres of land. Only after approaching this Court in W.P. No. 2370 of 1999, learned Government Pleader served a copy of the award upon his counsel on 01.03.1999 and after finding that the market value fixed for the lands in question is shockingly low and even the compensation amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not paid to his brother and himself. He gave a representation dated 19.03.1999 to the Land Acquisition Officer seeking for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As there was no response, his brother and himself gave another representation dated 22.03.1999 to the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai requesting for payment of compensation or for exclusion of lands. Left with no fruitful result, his brother and himself gave a representation to the first respondent on 23.06.1999 praying for exclusion of lands under Section 48 of the Act. A reminder was sent to the first respondent on 23.06.1999. 4. Left with no fruitful result, his brother and himself gave a representation to the first respondent on 23.06.1999 praying for exclusion of lands under Section 48 of the Act. A reminder was sent to the first respondent on 23.06.1999. 4. The petitioner further submits that since there was inaction on the part of the first respondent herein and its subordinate officers in granting relief to his brother and himself, he approached the lawyer at New Delhi and through whom, he came to know that the judgment dated 17.01.1996 rendered in his case and batch of cases was sought to be modified and by order dated 18.08.2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India permitted the counsel to withdraw the applications seeking for modification of the order. Thereafter, his brother and himself have moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. No. 15833 of 2002 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to close the acquisition proceedings or alternatively grant market value of the lands in question as on the date of such payment of compensation. But, however, by an order dated 30.09.2002, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition before this Court. Before approaching this Court, his brother and himself gave a representation on 14.11.2002 to the respondent herein praying for exclusion of lands belonging to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 and 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. Though the first respondent herein has acknowledged receipt of the said representation on 21.11.2002, till date, no orders have been passed and communicated to him nor compensation being paid to him. 5. The petitioner further submits that his brother and himself, being the joint owners of the land in question, could not utilise the land to its best use for the past 30 years due to the inaction on the part of the first respondent herein to decide one way or other either to pay compensation or exclude the land from Acquisition proceedings and as a result of the said inaction, his brother and himself have been put to untold sufferings and mental agony and loss of income. Though the public purpose for which his land is acquired is for Kalaignar Karunanidhi Neighbourhood Housing Scheme-II, the said public purpose was diluted and the second respondent wanted to utilise the said land in question for the commercial activities of its instrumentality like CMDA, etc. and in that process, the land adjacent to his lands is being offered at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. ft. to the public including banks, traders, merchants, etc. unmindful of the fact that no proper section 5-A enquiry was conducted and no Form 10 notice was ever served upon his brother and himself calling upon handing over possession of the land till date. After holding award enquiry, if compensation had to be determined in respect of his lands, it will amount to crores of rupees which the second respondent being liable to pay with solatium at 30% and interest at 12% per annum. Since the lands acquired by the first respondent / Government of Tamil Nadu is for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board the same could not be sold to public for want of buyers, the policy of the Government as on today is to engage private entrepreneurs for the sale of the house plots/flats. Thus, the policy of the Government underwent a change and it is ill-affordable to pay the compensation amount, his representation for exclusion of the lands in question may be considered under Sections 48 and 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act. While considering the said representation, the first respondent may also consider the developmental activities that were carried on in and around his land and levy charges for such development which he is willing to pay and the first respondent in that process, may also consider the fact that he could not better utilise the land for the past 30 years and he had been put in a nebulous stage. Suppose, this Court feels that payment of compensation is the only relief, determination of such compensation at the present rate of market value may be ordered without loss of time and payment made thereafter expeditiously to his brother and himself. 6. Suppose, this Court feels that payment of compensation is the only relief, determination of such compensation at the present rate of market value may be ordered without loss of time and payment made thereafter expeditiously to his brother and himself. 6. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent or the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, to whom he had made representation on 23.09.1997, 22.03.1999, 23.06.1999 and 14.11.2002 praying for payment of compensation according to the market rate prevailing as on date relating to his land or for exclusion of the land from acquisition proceedings, had failed to discharge their statutory duty for all these years and therefore, he was compelled to approach this Court in an earlier occasion by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of reconveyance by way of mandamus in W.P. No. 21314 of 2003 and the same had been disposed of on 31.07.2003 with a direction to dispose the said representation within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner further submits that where the lands acquired under the land acquisition Act were not utilised for the purpose for which they acquired prior to 30 years they have to be reconveyed to the land owner under Section 48-B of the Act. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act if the Government is satisfied that the land vested in it is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose, the lands shall be transferred to the original owner, who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under the Act. The petitioner further submits that the notification under Section 4(1) is for promoting the Kalaignar Karunanidhi Neighbourhood Housing Scheme-II for developing the House sites notified three decades back and the same was not utilised or required for the said purpose and now want to divert the same for some other purpose than it was notified under Section 4(1) to give the same to one CMDA after the lapse of 3 decades even without paying the compensation to them till date and even after the completion of 30 years they are not able to even see the colour of the coin, being a throw away price which the same does not even reflect even a nominal price and hence the act of the first respondent in not reconveying the said land in question to him being the original previous owner of the land in question under Section 48-B is highly unjust, illegal, contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is the bounden duty of the first respondent / Government that they ought to have reconveyed the said land immediately without any delay while the said land in question could not be in a position to utilise for the purpose for which it was notified and acquired under Section 4(1) for more than 3 decades for the ends of justice and hence the right guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 is infringed. 7. The petitioner further submits that in fact, the Government of Tamil Nadu has also given the news in "Daily Thanthi" on 26.11.2003 and "The Hindu" dated 27.11.2003 stating that the Housing Board is willing to reconvey the lands involved in acquisition proceedings to the respective landowners concerned subject to certain terms and conditions and hence the housing board has also taken a policy decision to reconvey the lands. He further submits that he and his brother have not even received the compensation even after the lapse of 30 years and in such circumstances for the ends of justice the first respondent / Government ought to have reconveyed the land without any further delay immediately on the representation made by the owner where he is willing to get back the land stating that he has not even been paid the compensation and hence the question of willing to repay the amount paid to him under the said Act will not arise. In as much as the first respondent failed to discharge the basic duty caused upon them in reconveying the said land in question on the basis of the written representation made by him as early as from 23.06.1999 and followed by further representation dated 14.11.2002 and 27.08.2008, he has no other option except to invoke the special prerogative remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of Mandamus directing the respondents to reconvey the land in question on the basis of his representations dated 23.06.1999, 14.11.2002 and 27.08.2003. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent is making hasty steps to give the land in question to the CMDA and hence, the respondents are clearing all the bushes with the help of bulldozer and making arrangements to put up fence in and around his lands while the possession of the said land is only with him till date and possession is not yet taken by the respondents and hence, the very removal of the bushes and attempt to put up fence is highly illegal and contrary to law and the respondents may hand over the lands in question to any other third parties contrary to the provision of Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the petitioner entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 8. The second respondent has not filed any counter statement in the above writ petition. However, the second respondent herein has filed a counter statement in the connected writ petition in W.P. No. 26856 of 2010. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent requests this Court that the counter statement filed in the connected writ petition in W.P. No. 26856 of 2010, may be taken into consideration in the above writ petition also since the facts are one and the same. The counter statement filed by the first respondent in W.P. No. 26856 of 2010, reads as follows:- (i) The second respondent submits that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has acquired the land in Koyambedu Village for the New Neighbourhood Scheme known as K.K. Nagar Part-II scheme. Accordingly, the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for an extent of 218.30 Acres in Koyambedu Village was approved by Government vide G.O.R.T. No. 221, Housing Department dated 29.08.1975 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 01.10.1975. Accordingly, the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for an extent of 218.30 Acres in Koyambedu Village was approved by Government vide G.O.R.T. No. 221, Housing Department dated 29.08.1975 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 01.10.1975. Further, the Land Acquisition was processed by Land Acquisition Officer as per the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, Award passed and lands taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for locating the peripheral outstation bus terminus by PTC and organizing the Whole-sale market complex as per G.O. Ms. No. 125 dated 20.01.1978. The second respondent further submits that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has paid the compensation amount a sum of Rs. 26,45,000/- vide Cheque Nos. 78 TV 912826 dated 30.03.1979. Therefore, the land has been acquired and handed over to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Subsequently, Award of compensation had also been paid to the land owners. (ii) The second respondent further submits that the land in Survey Nos. 164/1 and 165 measuring an extent of 1.18 and 1.41 Acres are covered in Award No. 1/83, dated 29.01.1983 and the above said lands were handed over to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority by Land Acquisition Officer on 06.04.1983, the land in Survey Nos. 167/1B, 167/5, 167/6, 168/2, 166/2 and 167/2, measuring an extent of 7.81, 0.15, 0.08 and 2.75, 7.14, 0.08 Acres are covered in Award No. 2/83, dated 28.02.1983 and the above said lands were handed over to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.06.1983. The second respondent further submits that the petitioner herein has filed the M.P. No. 1 of 2010 in W.P. No. 26856 of 2010 and sought ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 5 herein from altering the physical feature of the land comprised in Survey No. 164/1 and 165, 165/2, 167/1B, 167/5, 167/6, 168/2, 166/2 and 167/2 pending disposal of the W.P. No. 25856 of 2010. However, this Court has dismissed the said M.P. No. 1 of 2010 on 13.09.2011 as the learned counsel for the respondents that subsequent to the passing of the Award, the amount was deposited in the Revenue Department and the petitioner, instead of making claim before the Department, has filed this writ petition for disbursement of the money. In view of the same, I see no reason to entertain this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed. In view of the same, I see no reason to entertain this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Therefore, there are no sufficient documents and revenue records in favour of the petitioner herein. Hence, the interim injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner herein. The second respondent further submits that as per 4(1) Notification of G.O.Ms. No. 221 dated 29.08.1975, the landowners are as follows:- S. No. Survey Nos. Owners Name Total Extent 1. 164/1 Chellammal & C. Rajaram Mudaliar 1.18 Acres 2. 165 S. Perumal Naidu & Chellammal 1.41 Acres 3. 166/2 Chellammal 7.14 Acres 4. 167/1 S. Perumal Naidu & Chellammal 9.17 Acres 5. 167/2 S. Perumal Naidu & Chellammal 0.08 Acres 6. 167/5 S. Perumal Naidu & Chellammal 0.15 Acres 7. 167/6 S. Perumal Naidu & Chellammal 0.08 Acres 8. 168/2 S. Perumal Naidu & Chellammal 3.71 Acres As per 4(1) notification, the said Chellammal alone is not an original owner as stated in the present writ petition by the petitioner herein. Further, the said properties stands in the name of (1) C. Rajaram Mudaliar, (2) S. Perumal Naidu and (3) Chellammal. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot claim the rights over the entire properties and he must prove his ownership by way of producing all the relevant revenue records standing in the name of Chellammal. Therefore, the petitioner has to prove his rights and title over the property. (iii) The second respondent further submits that the petitioner's family members of (1) B.R. Chengappa Naidu (2) B.C. Munirathinam Naidu (3) M. Krishnaveniammal's names are not available in the 4(1) notification of G.O.Ms. No. 221, dated 29.08.1975. Therefore, the petitioner herein has to explain his rights over the properties. The second respondent further submits that the properties acquired and handed over to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 06.04.1983 and 04.06.1983 and at present the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is having possession of the acquired lands. Further, the petitioner herein has failed to produce the copy of the unregistered Will dated 20.03.1971 and the death certificate of Late. Chellammal and other relevant documents before this Court to prove his ownership and the possession of the property. The second respondent further submits that the petitioner herein has filed the several writ petitions and the same are pending without any progress. Further, the petitioner herein has not produced any revenue records and documents to prove his case and claim. Chellammal and other relevant documents before this Court to prove his ownership and the possession of the property. The second respondent further submits that the petitioner herein has filed the several writ petitions and the same are pending without any progress. Further, the petitioner herein has not produced any revenue records and documents to prove his case and claim. Further the petitioner's intention is to retain and maintain the writ petitions without any progress. Hence, the second respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 9. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner and his blood brother namely Mr. M. Nithyanandham are joint owners of dry lands measuring to an extent of 20.60 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1-B, 167/2, 167/5, 167/6 and 168 situated at Koyambedu Village, now in Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk. Originally, the property was belonging to their grandmother late Tmt. B.C. Chellammal, who expired on 24.02.1972. She had executed a Will to and in favour of the petitioner and his brother dated 20.03.1971, bequeathing all her immovable properties including the subject lands. The said lands were divided into house site plots and a layout plan was approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, in his proceedings dated 16.11.1970. Thereafter, the respondents had initiated land acquisition proceedings for Neibourhood Housing Scheme. The 4(1) of notification was issued in the year 1975 in the name of late Tmt. B.C. Chellammal, the grandmother of the writ petitioner herein. As such, the acquisition proceedings had been initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer has become null and void. The husband of the said Chellammal had expired prior to her death and therefore, the petitioner and his brother have succeeded the said properties by way of a Will and they are the owners of the property. Thereafter, the acquisition proceedings under Section 5(A) of the Old Act, enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer in the name of dead person namely Tmt. B.C. Chellammal. Further, under Section 6 declaration was published in the Government Gazette is not valid under law and as such the entire acquisition proceedings had not been operated over the said landed properties. Therefore, the so called acquisition proceedings cannot be permitted for operation. Further, so far, the neighbourhood housing scheme had not been implemented for around 35 yeaRs. B.C. Chellammal. Further, under Section 6 declaration was published in the Government Gazette is not valid under law and as such the entire acquisition proceedings had not been operated over the said landed properties. Therefore, the so called acquisition proceedings cannot be permitted for operation. Further, so far, the neighbourhood housing scheme had not been implemented for around 35 yeaRs. The respondents had passed an award No. 1 of 1983 and award No. 2 of 1983 in the name of the late Chellammal and as such the entire land acquisition proceedings are all a sham and nominal. The highly competent senior counsel further submits that the compensation amount had not been paid by the respondents, further the said property still remains idle. 10. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, appearing for the petitioner further submits that a major portion of the land is vacant and the original purpose for implementing the neighbourhood housing scheme had not been carried out and the compensation amount had also not been paid. As such, the petitioner is entitled to get relief under Section 24(2) of the New Act 30 of 2013. Hence, the highly competent senior counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 11. The very competent counsel Mr. B. Vivekavanan appearing for the second respondent submits that the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired the property on behalf of Tamil Nadu Housing Board for forming the Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. Accordingly the petitioner's property and others property had been acquired totally to an extent of 218.30 acres in Koyambedu Village. After acquiring the said land, the same was handed over to the Housing Board. Now, the property has been utilized for peripheral out station bus terminus and also organizing the wholesale market complex, besides some portion of the property had been handed over to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited. Now, the entire acquired properties had been occupied by the respondents and utilizing the same for the public purpose. However, out of the acquired petitioner's lands, a portion of 1.50 acres had been handed over to the petitioner and his brother for his residential purposes as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The award amount had been deposited and the possession had been occupied by the authorities for public purpose. However, out of the acquired petitioner's lands, a portion of 1.50 acres had been handed over to the petitioner and his brother for his residential purposes as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The award amount had been deposited and the possession had been occupied by the authorities for public purpose. The compensation had been deposited in the year 1983 and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek remedy under the new Act. The very competent counsel further submits that the petitioner had so far not produced any valid title deeds for claiming ownership over the said property, especially, the said will which had been executed by their grandmother had not been probated, which is a vital document in the instant case. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 12. Per contra, the highly competent senior counsel Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy appearing for the petitioner submits that if the rest of the vacant land is delivered to the land owner, i.e. the petitioner herein, the respondents will not be prejudiced. At the same time, the second respondent had not utilized the acquired properties for their original purpose i.e. Neighbourhood Housing Scheme. The highly competent counsel further submits that now the acquired properties are diverted to other purposes. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order, the second respondent had released 1.50 acres in favour of the petitioner and his brother. The highly competent counsel further submits that if this Court directs the respondents to release unutilized vacant land to the petitioner, it will not run against the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order. Further, the original owner had expired on 24.02.1972 after executing a will in favour of the petitioner and his brother and as such the notification had been issued in the name of the deceased person on 01.10.1975 is not valid. Thereafter, the declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 29.07.1978. Subsequently, two awards have been passed dated 29.01.1983 and 28.02.1983 respectively in the name of the deceased person. 13. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and his brother had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983 and challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court and the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. 13. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and his brother had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 6169 of 1983 and challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court and the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the State Government had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Government to exclude 1.50 acres from the acquisition of the lands i.e. out of 20 acres and 60 cents. Accordingly, the State Government had given a notification and excluded the land to an extent of 1.50 acres comprised in Survey No. 167/9 and the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition informed to the petitioner about the withdrawal of petitioner's land to an extent of 1.50 acres from the acquisition proceedings by its letter dated 21.08.1996. 14. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 15833 of 2002, seeking direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to release the balance lands from acquisition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court and accordingly the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition and sought re-conveyance of lands from acquisition proceedings under Section 48-B of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of 19.10 acres. Under these circumstances, the respondent had issued notice dated 23.12.2008 for acquiring the lands to an extent of 1.50 acres of land for Chennai Metro Rail Project Limited. The petitioner had also sent a reply on 02.02.2009. Subsequently, the State Government had issued a Government Order for acquiring the said land 1.50 acres for the formation of Chennai Metro Rail Project. Against the said notification, the petitioner has filed another writ petition No. 17867 of 2010 for a direction to the Government to hand over the land measuring to an extent of 1.50 acres with the specific boundaries, the another writ petition No. 20769 of 2010 filed for quashing the Government Order for acquiring the 1.50 acres. The acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28.07.2010 has been stayed. The acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28.07.2010 has been stayed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance against his brother in C.S. No. 354 of 2006 on the file of this Court. The said Civil Suit had been amicably settled between the parties. On the basis of a compromise terms and conditions, this Court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner. Now, the writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition and challenged the entire notification dated 29.09.1978 is not valid since the acquisition proceedings had been issued on the deceased person namely Tmt. B.C. Chellammal, who was the grandmother of the petitioner herein. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that all the respondents had not furnished correct details regarding the occupation and usage of the acquired land by the fourth respondent/the Chennai Metro Rail Limited. Actually, a vast land is vacant out of 20.60 acres of land. The highly competent counsel further submits that the compensation amount had not been paid. However, the two writ petitions had been filed against the respondents in respect of 1.50 acres were dismissed. Now, the petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court. Further, the fourth respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner for acquiring the 1.50 acres from the petitioner and his brother. This is the current prevailing position. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 15. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:- (i) The Land Acquisition Proceedings had been initiated by the respondents 1 and 3 for acquiring the subject lands to an extent of 20.60 cents, situated at Koyambedu Village in various Survey Numbers. The said notification was issued on 01.10.1975 in the name of the deceased person namely B.C. Chellammal (Late), who expired prior to the notification i.e. 24.02.1972, which is a grave error committed by the land acquisition officer. (ii) Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.09.1978 and thereafter Award Nos. 1 and 2 were passed dated 29.01.1983 and 28.02.1983 respectively. These proceedings were also passed in the name of the deceased person. It clearly shows that the Land acquisition Officer had not applied his mind to carry out the acquisition proceedings in an appropriate manner. 1 and 2 were passed dated 29.01.1983 and 28.02.1983 respectively. These proceedings were also passed in the name of the deceased person. It clearly shows that the Land acquisition Officer had not applied his mind to carry out the acquisition proceedings in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the said acquisition proceeding is unfit to operate over the said lands for acquisition. (iii) Now, the Chennai Metro Rail Limited has occupied the said lands and has also constructed an Administrative Block and also formation of Railway lines and infrastructures and as such, the entire lands were occupied by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited. However, this Court is of the view that there is no authenticated documents to prove that the entire lands i.e. to an extent of 20.60 acres occupied by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited. Therefore, the respondents herein are directed to conduct a spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner for arriving at a correct conclusion as to what is the minimum requirement of land needed by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited and thereafter the excess of vacant lands available as of now, comprised in Survey Nos. 164/1, 165, 166/2, 167/1-B, 167/2, 167/3, 167/5, 167/6 and 168 in Koyambedu Village, now within the Chennai City limits, Chennai District, shall be handed over to the petitioner herein with an appropriate order along with a fresh sketch within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 16. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.