Point of Law: Merely because there was an audit objection and a portion of the amount deposited was returned would not lead to the interference that the amount was not deposited.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

(Common Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.7134, 7006, 6988, 6993, 7005, 7004, 6971 and of 2014, dated 19.03.2020.)

1. The appellants being aggrieved by the order, dismissing their Writ Petitions, filed for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the acquisition proceedings initiated by the second respondent, in respect of the lands in question, to be deemed to have been lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act for brevity) are before us by way of these appeals.

2. Though the Writ Petitions were dismissed by separate orders dated 19.03.2020, since the grounds raised before us by the appellants/writ petitioners are identical, the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Writ Appeal No.776 of 2021 is taken up as the lead case and the fact therein are noted as hereunder:-

The appellant claims to be the owner of the land comprised in S.No. 54/17, Thoppur Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, measuring an extent of 0.12.5 Hectare. The said land along with adjacent lands were subjected to the land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act for brevity). The notification under Section 4(1) of the notification was published on 10.11.1998. The appellant is said to have given his objection to the land acquisition proceedings, for the purpose of forming a Satellite City by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, called 'South Neighbourhood Scheme'. Ultimately, the award was passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in Award No.3 of 1991. The appellant's case is that though the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and culminated in Award No.3 of 1991, the physical possession of the acquired land continued to remain with the appellant and the respondents had failed to pay compensation to the appellant for over 23 years. It is the further case of the appellant that even after the 2013 Act the physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid and hence, the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act shall be deemed to have lapsed. The appellant would further state that during April, 2014, the respondents attempted to interfere with the appellant's possession of the land and the appellant filed W.P.(MD) No.7134 of 2014 to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the second respondent as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and by order dated 23.04.2014, an interim order of status-quo was granted in the Writ Petition. It is further submitted that the third respondent Housing Board had filed counter during April, 2015 and the Writ Petition was pending and the order of status quo was in force. The Writ Petition along with the connected matters were heard by the learned Writ Court and it is alleged that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Housing Board had placed certain documents before the Court without furnishing copies to the appellant and it was submitted before the Court that compensation amount was deposited on 19.12.1991 and 07.04.1992 and possession of the property was taken on 17.06.1992. It is also submitted that the Court taking into consideration those documents had dismissed the Writ Petition. The said order is impugned in this appeal.

4. Similar orders have been passed in the other Writ Petitions, filed by the Writ Petitioners and on identical grounds those Writ Petitions were also dismissed, against which, other appeals were filed by the appellants.

5. Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents had contended that they have taken possession of the property on 17.06.1992, by referring to a 'Transfer Charge Certificate' signed by the revenue authorities. This document could