Matter to be referred to Principal Judge Civil Court.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands of the extent of 2760 sq. metres in T.S.No.10/18-B, 600 sq. metres in T.S.No.10/19 and 233 sq. meters in T.S.No.10/22-A, in Kidangal Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. He claims to have purchased the said lands under various sale deeds dated 20.12.1990, 26. 1992, 111. 1994, 111. 1994, 211. 1994 and 28. 1996. The petitioner was also issued with patta by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tindivanam in his proceedings RTR A6/133/2004 dated --.2.2004.

2. By a notification published in the Gazette of India No.858 S.O.1162(E) dated 211. 2001, the Government of India appointed the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, as the Competent Authority under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the Act) for the purpose of acquiring lands for laying a bye pass road in National Highway No.45. The draft notification under Section 3A of the Act was approved by the Government in Government of India Gazette (Extraordinary) No.531 S.O.685(E) dated 16. 2004 and the substance of the notification was also published in Tamil and English Dailies in accordance with Section 3A(3) of the Act. Objections were considered and after following the subsequent steps prescribed by the Act, the second respondent passed an Award on 13. 2006, determining the compensation payable.

3. In the meantime, the respondents 4 and 5 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.417 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, praying for a declaration of title and for a permanent injunction. Pending suit, the respondents 4 and 5 also obtained an interim order in I.A.No.1569 of 2005 restraining the third respondent from disbursing the compensation amount till the disposal of the suit. However, the said interim order of injunction was subsequently vacated by the Civil Court on 12. 2005. As against the said order, the respondents 4 and 5 filed an appeal in CMA No.18 of 2005. But the said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 20.4.2006, by which the vacation of the interim order of injunction by the Trial Court was upheld.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a notice to the third respondent on 24. 2006, requesting the third respondent to disburse the amount of compensation determined by him. Since the third respondent did not issue any reply or respond to the notice, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the compensation as per the Award dated 13. 2006.

5. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.V.Arun, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the third respondent and Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

6. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended -

.(a) that the Civil Suit filed by the respondents 4 and 5 cannot be an impediment for the disbursement of the compensation amount to the petitioner, since the suit in O.S.No.417 of 2005 for declaration of title filed on 11. 2005 was actually not maintainable, as the lands in question vested with the Central Government by virtue of Section 3D(2) of the Act, after the publication of the declaration under Section 3D(1) in the Government of India Gazette (Extraordinary) No.432 S.O.610(E) dated 5. 2005;

.(b) that in any case the interim order of injunction restraining the third respondent from disbursing the compensation amount to the petitioner, originally granted by the Trial Court in I.A.No.1569 of 2005 was subsequently vacated on 12. 2005 and hence there was no impediment for disbursing the amount to the petitioner; and

.(c) that inasmuch as the respondents 3 and 4 have failed to raise any objection before the third respondent either at the time of Award enquiry or thereafter, in exercise of the right conferred under Se