JUDGMENT Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. This Writ Appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging the order, dated 05.11.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.9395 of 2012. 2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner challenging the proceedings made in letter No.M.H.12/4709/89, dated 11.10.2011 and for a direction to the respondents to issue patta in the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner without insisting him to obtain No Objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with respect to the lands in S.F.No.10/1A2, 31-1/2 cents, S.F.No.10/1, 31-1/2 cents and S.F.No.10/1, 31-1/2 cents as per G.O.Ms(D)No.244, Housing and Urban Development (N.A.3(1)) Department, dated 14.07.2008, which are situated in Ponmeni Village, Ellis Nagar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. 3. The relevant facts required for the consideration of the Writ Appeal are that Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 24.01.1979 for acquiring vast extent of lands in Ponmeni Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District for the purpose of Ellis Nagar Housing Board Scheme at the instance of the appellant/second respondent under G.O.Ms.No.51, Housing and Urban Development (N.A.3(1)), Department, dated 14.07.2008. After a long delay, on 21.01.1982, Section 6 declaration was made. In the meanwhile, batch of Writ Petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings in W.P.Nos.1326, 1588 and 4131 of 1982, after the award was passed on 28.04.1982. This Court, by order dated 15.07.1982, disposed of the above said batch of writ petitions by quashing Section 6 Notification on the ground of delay and laches. Liberty was also given to the Government to proceed with the fresh acquisition. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the Government in W.A.No.1028 of 1986 and the same was also dismissed on 18.11.1986 by the Division Bench of this Court. There was also no fresh requisition by the Government and the Government appeared to have dropped the proceedings. 4. On 29.12.2000, the appellant/second respondent had also passed a Resolution No.8.06 to drop the acquisition proceedings. The said Resolution was accepted by the Government and passed G.O.Ms(D)No.244, Housing and Urban Development (N.A.3(1)) Department, dated 14.07.2008. 5. It is relevant to extract Resolution No.8.06 passed by the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board:- xxx xxx xxx 6. As per the said Resolution, it is stated that only after laying the pathway for the lands, which were already acquired by the appellant/second respondent, No Objection Certificate can be granted. 5. It is relevant to extract Resolution No.8.06 passed by the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board:- xxx xxx xxx 6. As per the said Resolution, it is stated that only after laying the pathway for the lands, which were already acquired by the appellant/second respondent, No Objection Certificate can be granted. Even the Government had reiterated the same while passing the above G.O.Ms(D)No.244 Housing and Urban Development (N.A.3(1)) Department, dated 14.07.2008, that once the pathway is laid, No Objection Certificate has to be issued to the land owners. 7. In fact in W.P(MD)Nos.10608 and 10609 of 2008, an order was passed on 21.11.2008, wherein this Court had specifically stated that there is no necessity for the owners to seek No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the writ petitioners were at liberty to deal with their lands, as they are the land owners and the said order has become final. 8. In view of the above proceedings, the writ petitioner's predecessor- in-title made a representation, dated 23.02.2011 to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board seeking for No Objection Certificate for effecting name changes in the revenue records. As there was no response, they were constrained to file W.P(MD)No.3637 of 2011 and obtained orders from this Court on 12.03.2011, wherein this Court directed the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider their representation within eight weeks. 9. In the meanwhile, the first respondent/writ petitioner in the Writ Appeal herein had purchased properties in question under two sale deeds on 25.08.2011, however, the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board had not issued No Objection certificate to the writ petitioner's vendors. Hence, there was a challenge to the same in W.P(MD)No.9395 of 2012 and this Court allowed the Writ Petition. Against which, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 10. Hence, there was a challenge to the same in W.P(MD)No.9395 of 2012 and this Court allowed the Writ Petition. Against which, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 10. The learned Single Judge, considering the earlier order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.10608 and 10609 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008, wherein it has been held that there is no necessity to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as the proceedings of the land acquisition itself has been quashed by this Court in view of quashing of Section 6 Declaration and the acquisition proceeding was quashed in batch of writ petitions by this Court, held that as there was no fresh acquisition or proceedings by the Government, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has got no right to refuse for issuance of No Objection Certificate. 11. Considering the above said aspects, the learned Single Judge had directed the revenue authorities to issue patta in the first respondent/writ petitioner's name without insisting for No Objection Certificate from the appellant/second respondent and allowed the Writ Petition. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. It is now stated that after passing of the order in the above said Writ Petition, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai had effected name change in favour of the first respondent, who was the writ petitioner, after getting report from the appellant as well as the fourth respondent-Tahsildar. 14. It is seen from the records that the Writ Appeal was filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board only on 05th February, 2015, whereas, on 13.03.2015, name transfer had been effected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also relevant to state that at no point of time, revenue records relating to the lands in question stood in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and therefore, they need not even issue No Objection Certificate. 15. In the absence of any acquisition proceedings, the appeal preferred by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who is only the requisition body, is not maintainable and in view of the subsequent name transfer, nothing survives in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.