ORDER

The present petition has been filed assailing the land acquisition proceedings as having been lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short ‘Fair Compensation Act’) and to restrain the respondents 1 to 6 and 8 from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the joint owners of the subject property measuring a total extent of 3881.306 sq.mtrs., with buildings comprised in T.S. No.5B (Old Survey No.40/5), Block No.14, Periyakoodal Village, bearing Door No.89, Brewery Road, ‘A’ Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 102 and that they purchased the said property from the 7th respondent under 16 different sale deeds in the years 1995 and 1996. Subsequent to the purchase, various proceedings had been initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. However, the petitioners were issued with patta in their names.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that they were issued with a show cause notice on 28.5.2001 by the 4th respondent calling for explanation as to why the patta granted in their favour should not be cancelled against which the petitioners filed C.S. No.418 of 2001 before this Court seeking declaration that the petitioners are the owners of the property and for a consequential order of injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 and their agents in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and for further reliefs. The said suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement submitting that a proposal has been formulated by the Corporation of Chennai to develop the ‘Shenoy Nagar Town Planning Scheme’ and towards the same, approval was granted by the Government and a notification was issued for acquisition of the property in question, which as the subject matter of Award No.2 of 1953 dated 31.03.1953. It was the further stand of the respondents therein that symbolic possession was taken on 9.4.1953 and possession of the property was handed over to the 6th respondent.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said suit was decreed on

24.7.09 in favour of the petitioners against which appeal was preferred by the 6th respondent Corporation in O.S.A. No.24 of 2017. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.18 setting aside the decree granted in the suit by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, Special Leave Petitions in SLP Nos.22155 and 22156 of 2018 were preferred and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 27.8.2018, dismissed the petitions and considering the fact that the petitioners have been running educational institution in a portion of the property, one year time was granted to vacate the premises subject to filing of undertaking within four weeks from 27.8.2018. It is the further case of the petitioners that inspite of the said order, physical possession of the land has not been taken till date and that compensation has also not been paid so far and by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the entire acquisition gets lapsed. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed for the relief supra.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted a year’s time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the property, yet the respondents have not taken any action to take possession of the property till this day. In such a situation, Section 24 (2) of the Fair Compensation Act stand squarely attracted and in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority – Vs – Manoharlal & Ors. (2020 (8) SCC 129), the entire acquisition proceedings would stand lapsed. Particular reference was drawn to para-366 of the said order, which is quoted hereunder :-

“366. In view of the