The satisfaction of either taking possession or payment of compensation would prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Stale and dead claims relating to concluded cases cannot be revived under Section 24(2), and the obligation to pay compensation is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) of the Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated and processed by respondents by issuance of a notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No.758, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 03.05.1991 and Declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No.288, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 4.6.1992 and culminating in Award No.10 of 94 in Ref. No.917 of 90 for Kalapatti Neighbourhood Scheme has lapsed by virtue of the acts and omissions of the respondents as well as by operation of Section 24 of Central Act 30 of 2013 and consequently directing the respondents and their officials to refrain from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over land measuring 0.39.52 hectares in S.F. Nos.963/2B2.)

1. Assailing the land acquisition proceedings as having lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act, 2013’), the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that lands measuring 2.88.5 hectares comprised in S.F. No.963/1 and 963/2 of Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk belonged to one Subbanna Gounder, the father of petitioners 1 to 5 and grandfather of petitioners 5 and 6 and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Whileso, vide G.O. Ms. No.758, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 03.05.1991, notice u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) was issued proposing to acquire lands for the Kalapatti Neighbourhood Housing Scheme, which was thereafter followed up with a Declaration u/s 6 of Act, 1894 on 4.6.1992 and, thereafter, award was passed on 8.6.1994 in Award No.10 of 1994.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioners that till date no compensation has been paid to them and that physical possession of the lands have also not been taken over from the petitioners and that they are in possession of the lands till date. The petitioners have been in possession of the lands since 1.1.2007 on which date, the original land owner, viz., Subbanna Gounder died. It is the further averment that originally writ petition was filed by Subbanna Gounder challenging the notification and declaration in W.P. No.9708/1994, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that award was passed and the petitioner was given liberty to make representation u/s 48-B of Act, 1894.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that several land owners, whose lands were also subjected to acquisition proceedings for the very same neighbourhood scheme, challenged the said acquisition in W.P. Nos.16417/1998, etc., which was allowed by this Court and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed and the further appeal before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The said order came to be passed taking into account that the said neighbourhood scheme had not taken off and had been dropped.

5. It is the further stand of the petitioners that due to giving up of the scheme, several land owners, including the petitioners sold part of their lands and these petitioners sold lands in S.F. No.963/2 measuring 1 acre and 11 cents and 1 acre and 20 cents, which were purchased by third parties through sale deeds dated 27.9.2012. It is the further stand of the petitioners that they are in possession of the remaining extent of lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that they filed representation before the Government u/s 48-B of Act, 1894 for reconveyance of lands comprised in S.F. No.963/1 and 963/2 to an extent of 2.88.5 hectares and in view of no order being passed, a writ petition was also filed in W.P. No.8005/2012 in which this Court, vide its order dated 29.3.2012 directed the respondents therein to dispose of the representation, and by order dated 31.8.2012, the representation was