Relief prayed for under Article 226 may be rejected on the ground of laches.

The Government approved the draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to "The Act") in G.O. Rt. No.26 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23.10.1975 to acquire an extent of 513.52 acres of land comprised in various Survey Numbers including the Survey Numbers in question for implementing Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The said Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 12.11.1975. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted after serving notices to the land owners. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board decided to exclude an extent of 81.45 acres. The lands belonging to the petitioners are not covered in the excluded lands. The petitioners participated in 5-A enquiry. Section 6 Declaration was made in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 10.11.1978. The Award was passed on 30.7.1981. The lands were taken possession by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 11.8.1981 and 19.8.1981. The petitioners also received compensation.

2. The petitioners, Sixteen in Number, claiming to be the owner of the lands in S.F.Nos. 331/2, 332 333, 334/1, 334/2 Part of 319, 326/1, 320/2a, 327 to 329 of an extent of 7.61 acres of land, approached the Government through their Advocate, some time during 2000, seeking for re-conveyance of the lands under Section 48-B of the Act. The said request was rejected by order dated 15.5.2001. Questioning the same, present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Declaration made under Section 6 of the Act was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that Declaration was not made within a period of three years from the date of preliminary Notification. Infact, in S.L.P. No.11353 to 11355/1988, the Supreme Court quashed Notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act as well, with liberty to the State to exercise its power of eminent domain and make fresh preliminary Notification. The said order has become final. Based upon the said order, this Court in W.P.No.13582/1995 by order dated 1.2.1996, quashed the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of two petitioners and had directed the refund of the amount of compensation received by the petitioners together with interest. He would also submit that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.2629,2935 and 2936/2001 had directed re-conveyance of the land under similar circumstance. He would further submit that once 4(1) notification itself was quashed by the Supreme Court, the respondent is duty bound to re-convey the land to the land owners viz., the petitioners. In the circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order rejecting the request for re-conveyance is liable to be set aside and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to re-conveyance.

4. Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted that inasmuch as the award was passed as early as on 30.7.1981 and possession was taken on 11.8.1981 and 19.8.1981 and the lands were utilised, the Writ Petition filed in the year 2003, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. The lands absolutely vest with the State from the date of taking possession and there is no right vested in the erstwhile owners to seek for re-conveyance. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS SYED AKBAR ( 2005(1) SCC 558). He would also submit that various orders relied upon by the petitioners would apply to the petitioners in that case and cannot be cited as a precedent especially when the lands were already utilised by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and no lands are available for re-conveyance.

5. In view of the above rival submissions, the following question arises for consideration. Whether the petitioners have any right to seek for r