The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to the valid provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, in land acquisition proceedings for public purposes.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned Notification issued by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.32597/02/D2, dated 28.05.2004, which was published in Tamil Daily on 04.06.2004, by the third respondent and also subsequent Notification issued by the fifth respondent, in Na.Ka.No.D2/32597/2002, dated 10.09.2004, which was published in Tamil Daily on 18.09.2004 and consequently, direct the respondents to return back the balance vacant area in Re-Survey No.213/1 and Re-Survey No.233/2 of Viraloor Village to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in Re-Survey No.213/1 measuring an extent of 0.04 ares and also in Re-Survey No.233/2D, measuring an extent of 0.38.0 ares. He became the owner as per Partition Deed, dated 12.07.1995. The Patta was issued in favour of the petitioner in Patta No.D-2003/399, dated 18.12.2003.

3. The third respondent issued a Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on 10.11.2003, with an intention to acquire 15 sq. mts. of land, which is equivalent to 0.00.5 Hectares in R.S.No.213/1, Viraloor Village and also in R.S.No.233/2, total extent of 0.72.5 Hectares, equivalent to 7262 sq. mts., from one Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar. Notice under Section 3-C was not served on the petitioner.

4. The third respondent published Notification under Section 3-A of the Act and publication under Section 3-A(3) in the name of Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar. Notice under Section 3-C of the Act was not served on the petitioner. On coming to know about these proceedings, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2003 to the second respondent through his counsel. The petitioner has also sent reminders to the respondents. On 04.06.2004, the third respondent issued a correction notice stating that the Government intend to acquire 3347 sq. mts. of land, which is equivalent to 0.33.5 Hectares in R.S.No.213/1 of Viraloor Village, modifying the earlier Notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act regarding the acquisition of 15 sq. mts. of land in the said survey number. Subsequently, the third respondent published a Notification of Declaration under Sections 3-D and 3-G(3) of the Act on 10.09.2004, with respect to R.S.No.233/2, Viraloor Village, in the name of Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar, to appear for enquiry.

5. The petitioner made another representation on 13.10.2004. Without considering the same, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent on 25.05.2007 to receive the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land. The petitioner gave a representation on 19.07.2007 and no reply was given. Instead by way of another letter by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner was asked to receive compensation in respect of the land acquired in R.S.No.213/1.

6. On account of repeated representations of the petitioner, the fourth respondent along with other officials visited the land in question and conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the request made by the petitioner is genuine and submitted a report in Ref.No.2645/2005 to that effect to the second respondent. The petitioner applied for copy of the said report under Right to Information Act, but the fourth respondent did not furnish the copy of the said report.

7. At present, four-way track was laid on the eastern end of S.Nos.233/D, 233/2D and 213/1 of Viraloor Village. Nearly, 80 cents of land was acquired and utilised by the Government without following the due process of law and the balance area more than 1 acre of land in the survey numbers were kept idle and not utilised for public purpose. Since the petitioner is not possessing any other land, he needs the balance area for continuing his agricultural process.

8. The respondents have acquired the lands without adhering to the valid provisions envisaged under the Act. The act of the respondents is against the rule of law and the entire procee