K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.

Introductory:-

The land owner unsuccessfully challenged the land acquisition proceedings and accepted the verdict. Thereafter, the subsequent purchaser once again challenged the initiation of land acquisition. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty. The subsequent purchaser thereafter made an application for reference to the civil court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The subsequent purchaser filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.1901 of 1992, which was dismissed by order dated 20 July 1999. The writ appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 6 January 2010 in W.A.No.1098 of 2002. The third purchaser on the strength of a power of attorney given by the second purchaser filed a fresh Writ Petition invoking Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act for reconveyance. Thereafter, a miscellaneous petition was filed in the Writ Petition claiming the benefit of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Writ Petition was allowed without considering the earlier proceedings and the factum of taking physical possession by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board therefore filed the writ appeal with substantial contentions. The third party purchasers who have purchased the lands from the subsequent purchaser have come on record in the place of the subsequent purchaser with a contention that they are the present owners, entitled to the benefits of Section 24(2) of the new Act. This case is covered by the Judgment in Mahavir and another vs. Union of India and another (order dated 8 September 2017 in SLP No.24781 of 2017) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 24 of Act 30 of 2013 does not invalidate Court judgments/orders in which rights have been finally lost or due to inaction is barred and that the law does not permit examination of barred or totally fraudulent claim and that section 24(2) cannot be invoked in such cases.

Facts :-

3. The land owned by Thiru.Venkatara Subramaniyan, having an extent of 5.52 acres in S.No.130/2, Veerakeralam Village, Coimbatore, was acquired along with large extent for and on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The first respondent after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3 February 1982, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11962 of 1987, challenging the land acquisition. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, by order dated 23 April 1990. The first respondent filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.1901 of 1992 which was also dismissed. The order dated 20 July 1999 was unsuccessfully challenged in W.A.No.1098 of 2002. Thereafter, she filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.3927 of 2007, which was disposed of without interfering in the land acquisition proceedings.

4. The first respondent in the meantime sold the land to the respondents 4 to 6 and filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.22034 of 2012 by giving power of attorney to the fourth respondent, one of the subsequent purchasers. The prayer was to issue a Mandamus to direct the State and Tamil Nadu Housing Board to reconvey the land under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act.

5. While the Writ Petition was pending, the new Land Acquisition Act came into force, resulting in filing a miscellaneous petition for claiming the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act.

6. The learned Single Judge without reference to the earlier litigations and the documents available on file regarding the possession taken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, allowed the Writ Petition in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act.

Submissions:-

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that possession was taken as early as on 10 February 1987 and the said fact was admitted by the first respondent in her proceedings for reconveyance. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, in view of the earlier litiga