JUDGMENT : S.M.Subramaniam J. Under assail is the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.748 of 2017. 2. The Writ Petition has been instituted by the appellant before this Court to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner comprised in, Survey No. Extent Sale Deed No 33 0.66 1612 of 1988 33 0.66 1614 of 1988 34 1.62 5744 of 2002 44/1(44/1A) 3.77 5744 of 2002 45/3 (45/3C1) 1.15 5744 of 2002 31 0.30 2502 of 1993 94/1A 0.70 492 of 1987 94/2A 0.44 492 of 1987 99/3 0.85 492 of 1987 104 4.24 492 of 1987 213/1 0.75 2464 of 1984 213/2 2.10 2464 of 1984 217/2 0.28 621 of 1984 All in Valasarawakkam Village, Chennai, as lapsed, in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30/2013). 3. The uncontroverted facts are that land acquisition proceedings under the Old Act commenced in respect of the subject property in the year 1975. The Government in G.O.Rt.No.136, Housing Department, dated 14.05.1975, approved the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for an extent of 248.18 Acres of land in Valasaravakkam Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Thiruvallur District, for the formation of New Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. It was also published on 11.06.1975. The Draft Declaration and Direction under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.963, Housing Department, dated 07.06.1978 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 09.06.1978. After observing all the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, Award Nos.4/86 dated 05.09.1986 and 12/86 dated 29.09.1986 were passed. The subject lands comprised in S.Nos.213/1, 213/2 and 217/2 are covered in the aforesaid awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The possession of the said lands were taken by competent authorities and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 13.11.1986 and 15.12.1986 and since then the subject land vests with Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 4. The subject lands comprised in S.Nos.213/1, 213/2 and 217/2 are covered in the aforesaid awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The possession of the said lands were taken by competent authorities and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 13.11.1986 and 15.12.1986 and since then the subject land vests with Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 4. Particulars such as ownership, extent, compensation amount etc., in respect of the subject land are categorically stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in W.P.No.748 of 2017 as under, SI.No Survey No Total Extent in Award Extent cover in this Present Court case Award No & date Name of  Owner as per Award Award Amount & Nature of Deposit Possession  taken over date Patta Name & Patta no. 1 31/2 2.19 0.30 5/86 16.9.86 Eastern Clay Works and interested persons Dhanakoti Ammal, Rathna Naicker & Narayana Naicker Rs.581.05 Civil Court Deposit 24.04.2007 Mohan Brewaries & Distilleries Ltd., (patta No.3294, 133 & 3699) 2 33 1.32 1.32 5/86 16.9.86 Rs.350.20 Civil Court deposit 24.04.2007 3 34 1.62 1.62 6/86 19.9.86 M/s.Sudarsan Trading Company Rs.93,387.10 Civil Court Deposit 24.04.2007 Mohan Brewaries & Distilleries Ltd., (patta No.3294, 133 & 3699) 4 44/1A 3.86 3.77 8/86 19.9.86 Rs.8,36,189.85 Civil Court Deposit 24.04.2007 Mohan Brewaries & Distilleries Ltd., (patta No.3294, 133 & 3699) 5 45/3C1 1.15 1.15 7/86 17.9.86 Rs.48,837.10 Civil Court Deposit 24.04.2007 M/s.Sudarsan Trading Company (Patta No.119) 6 94/1A 0.70 0.70 9/86 10.9.86 V.Samasiva Rediyar Rs.50,036.00 Civil Court Deposit Not taken over TNHB (Patta No.1462) 7 104 4.24 4.24 14.11.1986 8 99/3 0.85 0.85 19/86 23.9.86 V.Samasiva Rediyar Rs.225.60 Civil Court Deposit 23.1.1987 9 94/2A 0.44 0.44 8/86 20.8.86 Rs.116.35 Civil Court Deposit 14.11.1986 10 213/1 0.75 0.75 4/86 5.9.86 Venkata Rathina Naidu, Subbammal; Palavalli Rajeswari, M/s.Mohan Brewaries Rs.755.15 Civil Court Deposit 13.11.1986 11 213/2 2.10 2.10 12 217/2 0.82 0.28 12/86 22.9.86 Govindaraja Naicker D.Divakar, Muthulakshmi Ammal & M/s.Mohan Breweries Rs.217.50 Revenue Deposit 15.12.1986 S.Govindaraja Pillai & Others (Patta No.1104) 5. Batch of Writ Petitions filed challenging the land acquisition by the erstwhile owner was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 08.10.1991. Batch of Writ Petitions filed challenging the land acquisition by the erstwhile owner was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 08.10.1991. The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.707 of 1995 filed by the Requisitioning authority, Tamil Nadu Housing Board against the order of the learned Single Judge was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 26.07.2001 and thus, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of land in Valasaravakkam Village attained finality. 6. After a lapse of about 42 years from the date of land acquisition proceedings, the appellant filed in WP.No.748 of 2017, on the ground that the acquisition proceedings lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition of the year 2013. The Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition, recording the facts relating to the acquisition proceedings and formed an opinion that the claim of the appellant is stale. Thus, the present Writ Appeal came to be instituted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that the possession still remains with the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant is the subsequent purchaser purchased the land after 4(1) notification issued by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The Housing Board project is dropped, and the possession is presently with the petitioner. The Distilleries Company is running in the name of M/s.Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited. As per the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.180, Housing Board, dated 04.10.2024, the petitioners are also eligible to avail the benefit for re-conveyance of the acquired land. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the relief. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would oppose by stating that the claim of the appellant is stale. The 4(1) notification under the Old Act was issued in 1975, and the award was passed in 1986. The possession was taken and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court deposit. Therefore, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act had been complied and thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. 9. The possession was taken and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court deposit. Therefore, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act had been complied and thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. 9. Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides restriction on transfer etc and reads as under, “No Company for which any land is acquired under this Part shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government.” 10. In view of the express bar imposed under Section 16(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent purchase of the property under land acquisition is null and void. Consequently, the purchase of the subject property by the petitioner is rendered invalid. 11. In respect of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act, in the present case, even as per the counter filed by the State in the Writ Proceeding, the Civil Court deposit was made, and particulars are clearly given. Though possession was taken and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioner's claim of being in possession cannot be construed as legal possession, but rather amounts to an encroachment of the property belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which is the requisitioning body. 12. As per the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal And Others, 2020 (8) SCC 129 , settled cases cannot be reopened after the lapse of many years. It is sufficient if any one of the conditions contemplated under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act has been applied with. 13. Regarding the compensation, it was deposited in the Civil Court deposit. As for the possession of a subsequent purchaser, it amounts to an encroachment of public property. Therefore, a subsequent purchaser, whose purchase is expressly barred under Section 16(A) of the Old Land Acquisition Act, cannot claim to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act. 14. Regarding the compensation, it was deposited in the Civil Court deposit. As for the possession of a subsequent purchaser, it amounts to an encroachment of public property. Therefore, a subsequent purchaser, whose purchase is expressly barred under Section 16(A) of the Old Land Acquisition Act, cannot claim to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act. 14. Regarding the claim of the petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser and purchase of the property barred under Section 16(A) of the Old Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Land and Building Department through Secretary and Another Vs Attro Devi and Others, 2023 SCC ONLINE 396 held as follows, “12......The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land....” 15. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is not falling within the ambit of the conditions stipulated under Section 24(2) of the New Land Acquisition Act. The occupation of the petitioner is illegal, and the respondents are bound to initiate all appropriate actions to remove the encroachers and utilize the land for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose, subject to obtaining necessary orders from the Government. 16. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Post the matter on 21.04.2025 under the caption 'for reporting compliance'.