JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.09.2020 in W.P.No.10065 of 2020) D. Krishnakumar, J. 1.The appellant herein has earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 10065 of 2020 challenging the impugned letter issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.03.2020, directing the petitioner to furnish ''No Objection Certificate'' from the 2nd respondent/TNHB for the purpose of considering the application submitted by the appellant seeking for planning permission. The said writ petition was dismissed by the writ Court by order dated 09.09.2020 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings has been upheld by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and the compensation amount has also been deposited before the competent Civil Court. Challenging the said order the writ court, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had purchased the subject property by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1988 from one Mrs. Charumathi Rajamani. Since he wanted to develop the property, he entered into a Development Agreement and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of M/s.KCEE Properties Private Limited. The appellant submitted an application to the 1st respondent seeking sanction to construct a building consisting stilt + 4 Floors. The 1st respondent through impugned dated 04.03.2020 directed the appellant to get a NOC from the TNHB/2nd respondent. Challenging the same, the appellant filed a writ petition and the same was dismissed by the Writ Court. Aggrieved by the said of the writ court, the present appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants'' neighbours in Valasarawakkam Village were issued planning permission in the locality, without insisting on production of NOC from the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that issuance of ''No Objection Certificate'' by the 2nd respondent for considering application for planning permission was decided by this Court in WP.No. 36111 of 2015. By order dated 22.09.2006, this Court directed the planning authority to consider the application for approval without insisting on production of NOC from the 2nd respondent. The SLP (Civil No. 20551/2006 preferred by the 2nd respondent was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 05.01.2009. By order dated 22.09.2006, this Court directed the planning authority to consider the application for approval without insisting on production of NOC from the 2nd respondent. The SLP (Civil No. 20551/2006 preferred by the 2nd respondent was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 05.01.2009. Thereafter, much later the same issue was decided by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1452 of 2010 on 19.10.2011, concerning to the earlier decisions in the light of orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, several writ petitions were allowed and these decisions ordered not to insist on NOC from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the writ court observing that the appellant herein cannot be permitted to use the property against the interest of the TNHB which has become the owner of the property is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the appellant herein namely V.Anantharaman is an encroacher and claiming rights and title over the acquired land in survey no. 150/1A for the extent of 2 grounds 120 Sq.ft at Valasaravakkam Village, Maduravoyal Taluk. The award no. 9/86 dated 20.09.86 for 2.33 ¾ Acres, 1/87 dt. 31.12.87 for 0.77 Ac and 1/91 dated 12.12.1991 for 0.40 ¾ Ac for S.No. 1501A was passed in favour of land owner/interested person, namely Rani Dharmaraj. Since there was a dispute over the apportionment of extent and compensation, the entire compensation amount was deposited in Court under Section 30 & 31 (2) Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short L.A Act). A part of the land measuring an extent of 0.27 acres out of 3.54 acre was taken over by TNHB on 09.09.1999 and balance was not handed over due to encroachment. After that the appellant herein had purchased the disputed property illegally . 5. The learned standing counsel would further submit that the appellant herein had purchased the said property after the Government published 4(1) Notification. The appellant/ petitioner is a subsequent purchaser, therefore as per the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shivkumar & another Vs.Union of India & Others, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and other in (Civil Appeal No. 8003 of 2019) dated 14.10.2019, the appellant has no right to claim over the property as the same was purchased by him after 4(1) Notification published under the L.A. Act. The writ Court after elaborately considering the above facts, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order of the writ court does not require any interference by this Court and the instant writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Board and perused the documents available on record. 7. A perusal of records reveal that for the disputed land in S.No. 150/1A measuring extent of 3.54 acres, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No. 136 Housing Department, dated 14.05.1975 for implementing New Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme and subsequently the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was approved by Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 956, dated 07.06.1978 and Award No.9/86, dated 20.09.1986 was passed in respect of survey no. 150/1A. The said compensation amount in respect of land was deposited in the Sub Court, Poonamallee under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant herein had purchased the said property vide Sale Deed Document No. 4046/1988 on 30.09.1988 from one Charumathi Rajamani and entrusted it to KCEE Properties through a general power of attorney registered vide Doc.No. 6128/2019, dated 0.10.2019. Thus, it is clear that the appellant herein is a subsequent purchaser of the property which had already vested with the TNHB/2nd respondent much before the property was purchased by the appellant. 8. It is trite law that subsequent purchaser cannot have any right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a landmark decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [ (2020) 8 SCC 129 ] has held as under: 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse." 9. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse." 9. It is also useful to refer the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Ors. vs. The Administrative Officer and Ors. Reported in MANU/SC/0751/2012, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed with regard to the validity of challenging the acquisition proceedings subsequent to issuance of 4(1) Notification. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows; ''A person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 Notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor''s title.” 10. In view of the above judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, though the appellant herein has not challenged the acquisition proceedings in the writ petition, in view of the fact that appellant has purchased the subject property after issuance of Section 4 Notification, he has no locus standi to claim the ownership of the said property. Thus, the petitioner cannot challenge the letter issued by the 1st respondent directing him to get NOC for constructing a building in the said land from TNHB, since he cannot use the said property against the interest of TNHB. Therefore the contention of the appellant seeking relief as that of similar relief granted earlier by this Court, is unsustainable. 11. The writ Court, after going through the submissions made by both parties, held that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the property which had already vested with the TNHB much before the property was purchased by the appellant herein and the compensation amount was also deposited before the Civil Court. By relying upon catena of judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the writ Court held that the disputed property has become incapable of being sold or transacted and the sale transaction which held after issuance of 4(1) notification is void and it does not confer any right or title over the subsequent purchaser of the property. We also confirm the said decision of the writ Court. 12. We also confirm the said decision of the writ Court. 12. It is also to be noted that the appellant herein who is a subsequent purchaser of the land in Survey No105/1A, purchased in the year 1988, has approached this Court after a lapse of 33 years claiming parity on the ground the some land owners of the area who have challenged the acquisition proceedings were granted benefit. The said writ petition were filed in the year 1986 and 1988, whereas, the appellant herein has approached this Court in the year 2020. 13. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, reported in 2010(4) SCC 17 , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme held that the persons who approached the Court of their own lapse cannot be granted benefit and the same would frustrate the very purpose and scope of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below'' “77. Obviously, the appellants cannot be rewarded on account of their own lapse as they should have been vigilant enough to get their matters also listed along with those in whose favour ultimately judgment was pronounced. Looking to the scheme of the Act, it is obvious that the appellants would certainly suffer the consequence of the interim order passed in some other matters preferred by other landowners challenging the notifications but finally benefit thereof cannot be accrued to the appellants as the same would obviously be confined to those petitioners only in whose favour orders were passed. “ 14. In view of the above decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the appellant who is watching the entire proceedings as fence sitter and challenged the proceedings after a lapse of 33 years is not entitled to claim benefits as granted to other involved parties and the same unsustainable in law. 15. “ 14. In view of the above decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the appellant who is watching the entire proceedings as fence sitter and challenged the proceedings after a lapse of 33 years is not entitled to claim benefits as granted to other involved parties and the same unsustainable in law. 15. On an overall consideration of submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in the light of the settled law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, we conclude that the appellant who purchased the property after issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not have any right to challenge the original acquisition or to claim any benefits. Accordingly, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in V. Chandraskaran''s case cited supra, the said transaction itself is void and the said transaction does not confer any right or title over the subsequent purchaser of the property. Further, the said acquisition proceedings have been upheld by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the the writ appeals and the compensation amount has also been deposited before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot challenge the letter issued by the 1st respondent directing him to get NOC for constructing a building in the said land from TNHB, since he cannot use the said property against the interest of TNHB in view of principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority''s case cited supra. 16. The Writ Court after thorough consideration of all the facts and by relying upon various judgments, has dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the writ Court and the same is confirmed. 17. In fine, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.