JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J.

1. The writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the leaned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 23569 to 23572 of 2015.

2. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, who are subsequent purchasers, submitted that after the land acquisition proceedings were initiated, the original owners of the land questioned the same in the Writ Petition No. 3453 of 1992 un-successfully and after the dismissal of the writ petition, they have also pursued their challenge in writ appeal in W.A. No. 62 of 2000 and the same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, they have also filed Special Leave Petition(C) No. 25476 of 2010 before the Apex Court and the same was also dismissed. However, during the pendency of these proceedings, these appellants, being the subsequent and innocent purchasers, became the owners of the land by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 26.09.2005. After purchasing the land in question, they have also obtained patta from the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur. When the respondents have not paid the compensation to the land owners and the physical possession of the land also continues with the land owners even today, the land acquisition proceedings will stand vitiated as per the 2013 Act.

3. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the appellants brought to our notice the patta issued on 22.09.2015, 26.09.2005 and 31.10.2005 in respect of the land covered in Survey Nos. 362/2A & 363/1A, 369/3, 363/1A and 369/3 & 369/4B in the name of Sakthivel Shanmugam and Sasikala. Mr. Sundaresan further submitted that when the physical possession of the land continues with the appellants and the respondents have not even paid the compensation for the land in question, the appellants are entitled to get back the land. These legal aspects have been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge, therefore, these appeals are liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Per contra, opposing the above submissions, Dr. Gowri, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that it is an admitted case that the appellants are the subsequent purchasers by virtue of the sale deed dated 26.09.2005 and they have purchased the land from the erstwhile owners, who unsuccessfully, having challenged the land acquisition proceedings in W.P. No. 3453 of 1992, W.A. No. 62 of 2000 and S.L.P. (C) No. 25476 of 2010, lost their legal battle finally and therefore, the issue became final and concluded, hence the subsequent purchasers have no legal right to question the land acquisition proceedings any longer. Taking support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and another vs. Union of India and others reported in : 2019 10 SCC 229, holding categorically that the proviso to Section 24(2) does not recognise any subsequent purchaser after Section 4 notification inasmuch as it provides that where an award has been made and the compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition issued under the 1894 Act, shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act. Continuing her argument, learned counsel for the third respondents submitted that even the transaction of sale, effected after Section 4 Notification being void and ineffective cannot effect transfer of the land, such incumbents cannot invoke the provisions of Section 24 as the sale transaction did not clothe them with the title, more particularly, when the purchase was made, the possession of the land had already vested with the Government, hence, they cannot claim possession and challenge the acquisition as the proceedings have been lapsed under Section 24.

5. With regard to the payment of compensation, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the entire compensation has been paid on 15.03.1994 by way of