JUDGMENT :

T.Raja, J.

The appellant herein has brought this Writ Appeal against the impugned order dated 11.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.900 of 2015 in and by which the learned Single Judge while refusing the prayer for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the lands to an extent of 18 cents in Survey No.98/5 of Thiruvanmiyur Village duly notified by the 2nd respondent in the Award under Reference No.7/86 (RC.No.414/79) dated 23.09.1986 as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), dismissed the Writ Petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The land-in-question was originally acquired by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), on 17.07.1978. Subsequently, a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 06.08.1991. Thereafter, an award was also passed on 23.09.1986 in Award No.7/1986 and a compensation of Rs.40.95 p. had been deposited in a Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act on 16.02.1987. While so, the grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant herein is that firstly, although the Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated as early as on 17.07.1978 by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the physical possession of the land has not been taken and the appellant has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same till date. Secondly, as per Section 16 of the Act, the mode of taking physical possession of the acquired land following the Panchanama in the presence of witnesses signed by them has not been fulfilled. Thirdly, the compensation payable to the land acquired also has not been paid to him. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents stood lapsed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that as per Section 24(2) of the Act 30 of 2013, any acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more and where physical possession of the land has not been taken or where no compensation has been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and fresh proceedings have to be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30/2013. This aspect has been totally overlooked by the learned Single Judge.

4. Continuing his arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would further submit that when the writ petitioner/appellant and his family members, who all belong to Scheduled Caste Community, also do not have any other property to bank upon their survival, their meagre land cannot be acquired. In this regard, the Government of Tamil Nadu had also issued a Circular in the year 1977, giving a clear guideline that the lands belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes shall not be acquired except where it becomes absolutely necessary and in such cases, the District Collector should obtain the prior permission of the Government for including such lands in the Land Acquisition Proceedings. Therefore, when the Government Circular issued in the year 1977 speaks clearly that the land belonging to the weaker sections, namely, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes should not be acquired, in the present case, when the appellant owns only a small extent of land, namely, 18 cents covered in Survey No.98/5 of Thiruvanmiyur Village, it has been acquired. But, ionically, the respondents have come forward to re-convey the land covered in Survey No.95/8 Part in favour of one Mr.Kannappan, S/o.Babu Gurukkal, who filed an Appeal Petition to the Government of Tamil Nadu because the Government of Tamil Nadu in Letter No.44161/LA2(1)/04-3, HUDD, dated 20.09.2005 and Letter No.36644/LA2(1)/05-3, dated 16.03.2006 had directed the Tamil Nadu Hou