1. Heard Mr. T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. V.Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. K. Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4, Mr. M.Sivavarthanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent and Mr. Abdul Saleem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent.

2. The petitioner has stated that the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as "the SIDCO"), the fifth respondent herein, had sold an industrial Plot No.AC-23, comprised in R.S.Nos.145/2, 146/2 and 149/2, in the SIDCO Industrial Estate, at Tirumudivakkam, to one M/s. Shri Ramalinga Breads (P) Ltd. The possession of the said plot had also been handed over to the purchaser. Thereafter, M/s. Shri Ramanlinga Breads (P) Ltd. had sold the said industrial plot to the petitioners, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 11.10.2006. Pursuant to the said sale, the petitioners had taken over the possession of the said plot. Thus, the petitioners had become the absolute owners of the plot in question, on and from 11.10.2006. By a letter, dated 23.4.2007, the fifth respondent had approved the sale of the plot in question, in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners had constructed additional industrial buildings and had installed expensive machineries therein, for the running of the industry. While so, during the year 2013, the second respondent had proposed to acquire a portion on the South Eastern corner of the industrial plot, owned by the petitioners, for the purpose of extending the junction of the road, running under the flyover of the Chennai Outer Ring road, at Tirumudivakkam, invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The acquisition of a portion of the plot in question had been proposed by the second respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the respondents 1,2 and 4, their men and agents, have no authority or power to acquire a portion of the plot belonging to the petitioners, without following the methods and procedures prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed there under. As per Section 15(2) of the Act and the Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the second respondent ought to have issued the necessary notice to the petitioners, as they are the owners of the property, sought to be acquired. No show cause notice had been issued to the petitioners, asking them to show cause, as to why the property in question should not be acquired, for the proposed public purpose and an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners to attend the enquiry and to raise their objections, if any. Thus, it is clear that the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have followed the procedures prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed there under, in its letter and spirit. It had been further stated that before acquiring the land in question, the said respondents should have followed the procedures, including the issuance of notices, under Sections 15(2), 15(1), 16(2) and 19(5) of the Act and the Rule 5 of the Rules. The said notices ought to have been issued to the petitioners, who are the owners of the property in question. The said respondents cannot act in a manner contrary to the methods and procedures prescribed in the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, made in Kunwar Pal