land-owners/private respondents under Section 48 (b) of the Old Act, 1894. The grounds raised in the writ petitions also were only for the re-conveyance of the land to the respective land owners. When such is the case, during the course of argument, without providing opportunity to the appellant Housing Board, the Writ Court has proceeded to consider the issue under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereafter referred to as the 'New Act 30 of 2013'), when the prayer was altogether different. Finally, the Writ Court held that the land owners/private respondents are entitled for the relief under Section 24 (2) of the New Act 30 of 2013 and allowed the writ petitions. According to appellant Housing Board, the learned Single Judge during the course of argument has not provided an opportunity to the appellant Housing Board to put forth their stand on this aspect and submit records before the Writ Court to show that possession has already been taken by the Housing Board and compensation amount has also been either paid or deposited before the appropriate forum. On this ground, the appellant Housing Board seeks for setting aside order of the writ court.
