- (1.)IN W.P.No.11504 of 2006 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the third respondent declining the request of the petitioners seeking issuance of patta in respect of the land in Old S.No.84/6, Block No.34, Thiruvanmiyur Village, on the ground that the said land was acquired for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Award No.4 of 1986 dated 23.9.1986.
(2.)IN W.P.No.43770 of 2006 the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Government to issue NOC for the development of their land comprised in S.No.84/6A1A/A1A part of Thiruvanmiyur Village and T.S.No.84/6A/1A part and as per Urban Land Tax assessment.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are as follows:

(a) Petitioners claim that they are owners of the land comprised in S.No.84/6A1A1 (part) measuring about 20 grounds. The said land is in S.No.84, Thiruvanmiyur Village. According to the petitioners they became owners by way of Settlement Deed executed in the year 1972. The said land was sub-divided prior to 1975 as per the Field Map dated 18.7.1975. Petitioners' names are found in the said map as owners. (b) As per G.O.Ms.No.1096, dated 17.7.1978, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-II, Section-II on 9.8.1978 and the petitioners names have not been shown, instead the name of one K.T.Stephen was shown. According to the petitioners, even in the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, approved by the Government and published in the Government Gazette dated 8.8.1981, petitioners name do not appear, even though their names were found in the revenue records. Therefore the acquisition for the development of the said area as Besant Nagar Phase-II Scheme of the petitioner's land in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was not correct. (c) According to the petitioners, no Section 5A enquiry notice or notice under Section 9(3) was served on the petitioners. On 25.11.1986, a notice was served on the petitioners stating that the award amount was deposited in the City Civil Court, Madras, and the petitioners were called upon to surrender possession of the said land. (d) The petitioners filed W.P.No.13211 of 1986 to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) and declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in W.P.M.P.No.2011 of 1986, petitioners obtained an interim injunction from dispossessing them from the said land during the pendency of the writ petition. On 24.10.1991 this Court allowed the said writ petition and quashed 4(1) notification and 6 declaration. According to the petitioners, the said order was not challenged by the respondents by filing writ appeal. (e) The petitioners intended to develop their land and applied for planning permission before the CMDA. The CMDA directed the petitioners to obtain No Objection Certificate from the third respondent. Consequently, petitioners approached the Chairman, TNHB/third respondent in W.P.No.43770 of 2006, for the grant of NOC and according to the petitioners the third respondent then informed that appeal against the order of this Court was preferred. According to the petitioner, no notice in the writ appeal was served on the petitioners and the petitioners made enquiry through their counsel and they came to know that no writ appeal was filed against the order of this Court dated 24.10.1991 insofar as the petitioners' writ petition was concerned. (f) According to the petitioners, they again approached the third respondent for the grant of NOC. Petitioners also approached the second respondent for the grant of patta by contending that the petitioners' land was assessed to urban land tax upto Fasli 1415. The second respondent Tahsildar by his proceedings dated 26.6.2001 stated that as per the revenue records, the land comprised in Old S.NO.84/6 has been acquired by the Government and award has been passed on 23.9.1986 and therefore no patta can be issued to the petitioners. (g) As against the rejection of request to issue patta by the Tahsildar and NOC having not been issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, petitioners have filed these writ petitions contending that the Housing scheme itself was abandoned by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and in view of the writ petition filed by the petitioners which was allowed in the year 1991, they have every right to develop the land.

The respondents have filed counter affidavit contending that the land of the petitioners was acquired by issuing Section 4(1) notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 9.8.1978 and Section 6 declaration was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 8.8.1981; award was passed on 23.9.1986; possession was also taken and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board immediately. The award having not been challenged, and Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration alone having been challenged by the petitioners in the earlier writ petition, which was allowed along with the batch of cases on the ground of alleged vagueness in the notification regarding the purpose for which acquisition was made, and the said vagueness plea having not been accepted by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) 1 SCC 250 (State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan) and other issues in the said writ petition having not been decided and held in favour of the petitioners in terms of the judgment of the supreme Court, the order of this Court dated 24.10.1991 gets nullified and therefore the petitioners cannot rely on the said judgment for seeking patta from the Tahsildar and for the grant of NOC by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for getting planning permission from C.M.D.A.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the earlier order of this Court having been allowed to become final holding that the 4(1) notification and 6 declaration made are invalid, all the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in respect of the said land are lapsed and the petitioners being the true owners of the said land, the respondents are not justified in treating the said land as acquired land and the petitioners are entitled to get patta for the said land from the Tahsildar and NOC from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that in respect of the petitioners' land also award was passed in Award No.4 of 1986 on 23.9.1986 and possession was taken and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 30.10.1986 and the said award was not challenged by the petitioners and the same has become final. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alone were challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.13211 of 1986 on 9.12.1986 i.e, about three months after the award was passed and this Court along with connected writ petitions by a common order dated 24.10.1991 allowed the writ petitions only on the ground of vagueness by following the judgment in W.P.No.3693 of 1986 etc., batch. The Government filed writ appeal against the said order made in W.P.No.3693 of 1986 and ultimately the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) 1 SCC 250 (State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan) held that the proceedings quashed by this Court on the ground of vagueness is unsustainable. Writ appeals filed challenging the order dated 24.10.1991 in W.A.No.508 to 521 of 1995 wherein S.No.84/6 of Tiruvanmiyur Taluk was also included were also allowed by his Court by common order dated 16.11.1996 and therefore the petitioners have no right to rely on the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.13211 of 1986 dated 24.10.1991. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the decision rendered by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts and authorities and the said issue is no longer res integra as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (1985) 2 SCC 512 (Shenoy and Co v. Commercial Tax Officer); (2001) 2 SCC 549 (U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Limited); and (2002) 4 SCC 638 (Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao). The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that possession of the land having been taken and vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on and from 30.10.1986, the petitioners' prayer for issuing patta by the Tahsildar was rightly rejected on 26.6.2001 and the petitioners have no right to demand NOC from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the development of the said land, which has already been acquired and is in possession of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and these writ petitions, are bound to be dismissed.