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 pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document