Ratios:
d. Right to property is a Constitutional right. For its deprivation, procedure prescribed in law to be followed.
e. Whether the encroachment is of recent origin or old one, the Government can evict the encroachers by use of reasonable force.
f. Person in encroachment of Government land is not entitled for compensation to the land but entitled for compensation to the building put up by him.

Prabha Sridevan, J.:- The first respondent herein filed the writ petition claiming that his possession of Door Nos.63A and 64A at Puliampatti Village, Puliampatti Panchayat, Omalur Taluk, Salem District shall not be interfered with in the acquisition proceedings without complying with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Even at the stage of admission, the learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that the counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if the respondents determine the compensation, disposed of the writ petition directing the fourth respondent to conclude the acquisition proceedings and determine the compensation. Against this, the authorities of the State have filed W.A. No.789 of 2005 and the Union of India has filed W.A. No.1689 of 2005.

2. According to Mr. R. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, viz. the appellant in W.A. No.1689 of 2005, the first respondent was not entitled to any hearing, much less compensation. According to him, the Union of India ought to have been heard before the order was passed and even the cause title in the writ petition was wrong; the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory authority and cannot represent the Union of India. He also submitted that the first respondent is an encroacher on a cart track and his encroachment and occupation is illegal and unauthorised. He further stated that the requirements of the Act were duly complied with and publication has also been effected. According to him, in none of the notifications effected under the Act, the name of the first respondent was found, because the lands under the illegal occupation of the first respondent were Government poromboke lands and such lands should be transferred to the Central Government authorities before giving a land transfer proposal and since that was separately proceeded with, the name of the first respondent was not found in the notification. Learned senior counsel referred to several decisions in which the Supreme Court had explained the nature of right of such encroachers or trespassers. He also submitted that the right of the owners of the lands is very limited under the Act.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, viz. the appellants in W.A. No.789 of 2005 submitted that the Revenue records and other documents show that the first respondent was a rank trespasser with absolutely no right over the lands.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, however, submits that the first respondent had been in possession of the lands in question for over 54 years; he had been assessed to property tax and house tax; he also holds a ration card, and to now treat him as nothing more than a rank trespasser would not be equitable. Learned senior counsel submitted that by this long possession, the first respondent had a perfected title and he was entitled to possession. He also submitted that before commencing the acquisition proceedings, the State ought to have initiated proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. He further submitted that it would be relevant to note that the first respondent had filed a civil suit, which was only for a permanent injunction and was not a title suit and if he had had even a semblance of a title, he would have prayed for a declaration of his title. It was also submitted that the competent authority had also not been designated.

5. On 29.11.2002, a notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act was issued to the effect that the lands in question are required for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.1 (Bangalore Salem Madurai). It called for objections from any person interested in the lands it shall be made to the competent authority. The notification indicated that the land plans and other details could be inspected by the interested person at the office of the competent authorit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document