Physical possession of the land should be taken by the Land Acquisition Officer under the Old Act, as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The Writ Petitioners submit that the 22nd petitioner is the son of Late C. Gopal. The 21st petitioner is mother of the 22nd petitioner. The petitioners 23 to 25 are the sisters of the 22nd petitioner. The 26th petitioner is the brother of Late C. Gopal. The petitioners 1 to 6 are the sons and daughters of Late C. Elumalai, who was the brother of Late C. Gopal. The 7th petitioner is the daughter of Late C. Govindaraj, who was the brother of Late C. Gopal. The petitioners 8, 15 to 20 are the sons and daughters of Late C. Natarajan, who was the brother of Late C. Gopal. The petitioners 9 and10 are the wife and son of Late N. Arumugam, who was one of the sons of the above said Late C. Natarajan. The petitioners 11 to 14 are the wife and sons of Late N. Munusamy, who was one of the sons of the above said Late C. Natarajan.

2. The writ petitioners submit that Late C. Gopal and his brothers namely (i) Late C. Elumalai, (ii) Late C. Natarajan (iii) Late C. Govindaraj and (iv) C. Krishnan, who is the 26st petitioner herein are the co-owners of the land of an extent of 0.44 acres comprised in S.No.604 situated at Mogappair Village, Saidapet Taluk, Thiruvallur District. All along they were in possession and enjoyment of the property till their lifetime along with the 26th petitioner. The said C. Gopal died intestate on 22.08.1977, leaving behind the 22nd petitioner, the 21st petitioner and the petitioners 23 to 25 as his only legal heirs to succeed his property. The above said Late C. Elumalai died intestate on 29.11.2005 leaving behind the petitioners 1 to 6 as his only legal heirs to succeed his property. Late C. Elumalai’s wife namely Mrs. Rukmani predeceased him on 15.10.1997. The above said Late C. Govindaraj died intestate on 06.09.2013 leaving behind the 7th petitioner herein along with his wife Mrs. Thulasi Ammal and his son Thiru. Dasatharan as his only legal heirs to succeed his property. The above said Late C. Natarajan died intestate on 26.03.1997 leaving behind his wife Late Sarasu, the 8th petitioner and the petitioners 15 to 20 along with his deceased sons, namely, Late Arumugam and Late Munusamy as his only legal heirs to succeed his property. The above said Sarasu died on 03.11.2013. The above said Arumugam died instate on 17.06.2008 leaving behind the petitioners 9 and 10 as his only legal heirs to succeed his property. The above said Munusamy died intestate on 27.08.1999 leaving behind the petitioners 11 to 14 as his only legal heirs to succeed his property. Thus the writ petitioners become the absolute owners of the property as co-owners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. The writ petitioners further submit that in the year 1975, large extent of the lands situated at Mogappair Village including the subject land were sought to be acquired by the first respondent under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the purpose of Housing Schemes at the request of the 2nd Respondent. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter called the “Old Act” came to be issued on 23.10.1975 in G.O. Ms. No.261. In the said notifications, the name of the 26th petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Kistappa mudali. Though the 26th petitioner along with his brothers mentioned above objected to the said acquisition proceedings, the first respondent had overruled all the objections and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act dated 09.11.1978 in G.O. Ms. No.1515. Thereafter, the said acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an award in Award No. 3/83, dated 31.03.1983. Even though the award was made as early as in the year 1983, the fourth respondent did not take any steps to take the possession of the subject land either from the petitioners or from their ancestors. Further, neither the petitioners’ ancestors nor the petitioners were paid the compensation by the fourth respondent in respect of the subject land till