K.K. Sasidharan, J.

Introduction

1. The land owners, in the subject case were well aware even in 1982 about the initiation of land acquisition proceedings to acquire their land. The Award was passed in 1985. Even though in the affidavit filed in the writ petition, the respondents 1 and 2 admitted that they were in the know of things with respect to the acquisition in 1982 itself and culmination of proceedings in the year 2000, the writ petition filed by them in 2013, more particularly, 28 years after the Award to quash the land acquisition was allowed by the learned single Judge, notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12284 of 2010 and 16369 of 2012 filed for declaration and re-conveyance on 8 August, 2011 and 19 July, 2012 respectively.

The Facts

2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the instant writ petition in W.P.No.5624 of 2013 for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government by issuing Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.1013, Public Works Department, dated 12 May, 1983, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 29 May, 1984 and the Award dated 30 April 1985 are null and void and not binding on them.

3. Before the writ court, the respondents 1 and 2 contended that they were not aware of the land acquisition proceedings. According to the respondents 1 and 2, notices were not issued before conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Similarly, notices were not issued before passing the Award. The respondents 1 and 2 therefore, contended that the statutory notifications and the Award are not binding on them. In short, the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the acquisition is null and void on account of non-adherence to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. The appellants on the other hand contended that the land was acquired after issuing notice to the land owners, whose name were recorded in the revenue records. The appellants further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land and it was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "TANGEDCO"). The land was utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. It was further contended that the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12284 of 2010 and 16369 of 2012 filed by the first respondent were dismissed. The appellants therefore submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed also on the ground of delay and laches.

5. The learned single Judge perused the photographs produced by the respondents 1 and 2 and observed that only a portion of the land was utilised by the appellants for construction of Electricity sub-station. The learned single Judge observed that the appellants have not deposited the compensation amount and as such, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu) Amendment Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as "Act 30 of 2013). The learned single Judge finally held that the land was not utilised inspite of the expiry of 30 years and as such, it should be re-conveyed to the erstwhile land owners. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before us.

Submissions

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the land was acquired after issuing notices to the persons whose name were recorded in the revenue register. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondents 1 and 2 were aware of the land acquisition proceedings even in the year 1982 and the same is clearly admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the land was utilised by the TANGEDCO by constructing Sub-station, Staff quarters for the employees and Central Office Bu