JUDGMENT :

(D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)

(Prayer in W.A.No.357 of 2021 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 15.09.2020 in W.P.No.11535 of 2020.)

A. The Context :

1. The State of Tamil Nadu sought to acquire various pieces of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Vilankurichi, Vellakinar, Thudiyalur and other villages around the city of Coimbatore so as to develop residential areas/colonies to cater to the growing residential/other needs of the city over a period of time (1990 – 2001) by separate and independent proceedings and passing separate awards in respect of each individual acquisition.

1.1. While so, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'New Act') came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 (vide S.O. 3729(E) ), in and by which, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Repealed Act') stood repealed. However, provisions were made for the purpose of continuing the incomplete land acquisition proceedings under the Repealed Act in Section 24 of the New Act. As per Section 24(1) of the New Act, if the proceedings are initiated under the Repealed Act and no award was passed, then the provisions in the New Act, relating to the determination of the compensation, shall apply. If an award has been passed, further proceedings shall continue in the Repealed Act itself as if the Repealed Act has not been repealed. An exception to this rule is made under Section 24(2) of the New Act, if the award has been made five years prior to the commencement of the New Act and if the proceedings are not complete and if the physical possession is not taken and the compensation has not been paid, then the proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed and the government has to initiate fresh proceedings under the New Act if it still chooses to do so.

1.2. The persons interested/owners of certain properties covered under five such awards passed by the State of Tamil Nadu are before this Court, claiming the benefit under Section 24(2) of the New Act, to declare that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands stood lapsed. The claims have been either allowed or dismissed by different judgments of the learned Single Judges and appeals have been filed by either side in respect thereof. Certain other Writ Petitions which were pending and arising out of the same awards, were also directed to be clubbed along with the Writ Appeals and hence, all these matters are taken up together and are dealt with by this common judgment.

B. Gamut of the Controversy :

2. The learned Advocate General, learned Additional Advocate General, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/Housing Board and learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners, all agree that the matter is no longer res integra being squarely answered authoritatively by the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, but, however, the narrow compass of the difference between both the sides is as to whether the writ petitioners/land owners will be entitled for declaration that the proceedings have lapsed within the parameters of the law laid down by Indore judgment (cited supra).

C. The Law Laid Down by Indore Judgment:

3. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions in respect of each individual matters, it is necessary to restate the law laid down in Indore judgment (cited supra). While considering the conflicting views expressed by different Benches, by authoritatively interpreting Section 24(2) of the New Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

3.1. So as to claim the benefit under Section 24(2) of the New Act, two conditions have to be satisfied. The first condition is that the award