The urgency clause in land acquisition allows for proceedings to remain valid despite delays, provided possession is taken and compensation awarded.

ORDER :

1. Under assail is the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17594 of 2014.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

3. The writ petition has been instituted to declare the land acquisition proceedings issued under Section 4(1) of the Old Land Acquisition Act as null and void and further to declare the acquisition proceedings lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the New Act 30 of 2013.

4. Writ Court dismissed the writ petition. Thus, the present appeal.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the appellant is in possession and compensation had not been deposited. By virtue of an interim order passed in writ proceedings, the claim of the appellant to declare the land acquisition proceedings lapsed is to be considered. The learned single Judge since not considered these aspects, the present writ appeal has been instituted.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 would oppose by stating that the issues were elaborately considered in the previous writ petitions. The present claim made by the appellant is stale and therefore, to be rejected. Possession was taken long back. Government Offices are constructed and the award was passed. Thus, the writ Court has rightly rejected the claim.

7. The undisputed facts remained that Section 4(1) notification was issued on 12.06.1998 and award was passed on 28.06.1999.

8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20663 of 1998 challenging the land acquisition proceedings. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.02.2002. In paragraph no. 4 of the said order, this Court made a finding that after issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government felt that it is very urgent to complete the acquisition proceedings at the earliest point of time as such the respondents (Official Respondents) thought fit to invoke Section 17 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made as per G.O.Ms. No. 539, Revenue Department dated 23.06.1998, which was also published in the Tamil Dailies "Malai Malar" on 04.07.1998 and in "Theekadhir" on 05.07.1998. Notices were issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Act fixing the award enquiry on 03.11.1998. But the appellant do not participate in the enquiry. Therefore 80% of the award was deposited by the Official Respondents to the credit of the appellant in Tiruvallur Treasury on 23.12.1998 and thereafter possession was taken on the same date i.e., on 23.12.1998. Subsequently the appellant has sent a letter to the District Collector opposing the acquisition proceedings and the Collector issued a reply notice stating the above facts to the appellant.

9. Thus, the writ order passed by this Court on 19.02.2002 in W.P.No.20663 of 1998 reveals that the acquisition proceedings have completed. Urgent provisions were invoked. Possession was taken and the award amount was deposited in Tiruvallur Treasury on 23.12.1998.

10. After the above Judgment of this Court, the appellant filed a Review Petition in Review Appl. No.10 of 2002. The Review Petition was dismissed on 26.04.2002.

11. The appellant again filed W.P.No.28738 of 2004. In the said writ petition, an interim order not to disturb the appellant was granted. The Official Respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit in the said writ petition on 21.01.2013. In the said counter affidavit also the facts recorded by this Court in order dated 19.02.2002 has been reiterated. The dismissal of W.P.No.20663 of 1998 also has been stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit.

12. Taking note of the facts, the writ court has dismissed W.P.No.28738 of 2004 on 12.06.2013 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

"7. So far as the validity of the notification issued earlier under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, this Court has affirmed the same by order dated 19.02.2002 in W.P.No.20663 of 1998 and therefore, the same cannot be reopened. In this