The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the determination of 'paid' in the context of compensation.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant and W.P.No.13800/2008 has been filed by him for quashment of the order dated 11.10.2007, passed by the first respondent, by and under which, his request for re-conveyance of lands admeasuring 0.62.0 hectares in Survey No.890/1B and 0.49.0 hectares in Survey No.889/1B, came to be rejected, and the said writ petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on 29.3.2010, and hence this appeal.

2. The facts narrated in brief, leading to the filing of this writ appeal, are as follows:

"2 (i) The first respondent has sought to acquire the lands situated in Hosur, Dharmapuri District, now Krishnagiri District, for the purpose of Housing Neighbourhood Scheme Phase XV and XVI for Hosur Housing Unit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board and accordingly, issued G.O.Ms.No.850, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21.5.1991, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and it was published in the Gazette of the Government of Tamil Nadu on 19.6.1991. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued in G.O.Ms.No.528, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12.8.1992, and was also published in the Gazette of Government of Tamil Nadu on 12.8.1992, for acquisition of 6.52.5 hectares for the said scheme.

2 (ii) The appellant claims that he was the owner of the land admeasuring 0.62.0 hectares in Survey No.890/1B, and the land admeasuring 0.49.0 hectares in Survey No.889/1, belonged to his family and challenging the legality of the said acquisition, he along with four of his relatives filed W.P.No.1261/1993, on the file of this Court, and it came to be dismissed on merits, on 12.4.2000.

2 (iii) The appellant herein submitted a representation praying for re-conveyance of the above said lands, situated in the said Survey Numbers, and since it was not disposed of, filed W.P.No.4142/2007. Learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 6.2.2007, directing the respondents therein, who are also arrayed as respondents in the present writ appeal, to consider and dispose of the said representation within a stipulated time.

2 (iv) The first respondent in compliance of the order, has considered the request made by the appellant for reconveyance of the lands, and rejected the same vide letter No.3797/LA.2 (2)/2007-5 dated 11.10.2007, stating among other things, that after Section 6 declaration, an award came to be passed on 12.8.1994, in Award No.17/1994 and on account of order of stay with regard to dispossession, the lands in question, have not been handed over to the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently, possession was taken and handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 15.12.2000. It is further stated in the said letter, that the lands in question, are essentially required for the implementation of the Housing Scheme and the request for re-conveyance cannot be feasible of compliance and therefore, the first respondent rejected the said request.

2 (v) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board in turn, sent a letter dated 1.2.2008, to the appellant conveying the information about the rejection of his request by the Government and challenging the correctness of the proceedings dated 11.10.2007, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.13800/2008, contending among other things, that the persons similarly placed like him, had approached this Court and got the relief and therefore, his request for re-conveyance ought to have been considered positively.

2 (vi) It is further contended that the official respondents have not even chosen to deposit the amount due and payable towards compensation, till the date of filing of the writ petition and in reality, the appellant/writ petitioner has not been allowed to avail the benefits of the acquisition process and even today, the land is used for agricultural purpose and hence, he prayed for quashment of the above said order passed by the first respondent herein.

2 (vii) The learn