1. In W.P. No.33576 of 2013, the petitioner-Mr. O. Elia Reddy/representing President of Sudharsan Charitable Trust seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records on the files of the respondents viz., from the 1st respondent in respect of impugned G.O. Ms.No.68, Highways and Small Ports (HN2) Department, dated 18.04.2013, and in respect of the notice issued under Section 15 (1) of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 published in Tamilnadu Government Gazette No.36, dated 17.09.2014, from pages 631 to 637; from the office of the 2nd respondent in respect of 4 Notices, all bearing same Number viz., Na. Ka. No.2/2013/Ve.Va.Saalai/Kanchipuram, even dated 04.11.2013; and from the Office of the 3rd respondent in respect of four notices all bearing same Number viz., Na. Ka. No.2/2013/Se.Ve.Va. Saalai/Kanchipuram, even dated 18.09.2014, issued under Section 16(1) of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001, all respectively in respect of lands situated in Survey Nos.194/1B1, 194/1B2, 194/1B3pt and 194/1B3pt of No.2, Vandalur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District and to quash the same.

In W.P. No.27822 of 2014, the petitioner-Mr. M. Chinnasamy seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records on the file of the respondents viz., from first respondent in respect of impugned G.O.Ms. No.68, Highways and Small Ports (HN2) Department, dated 18.04.2013, and in respect of the Notice issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 36, dated 17.09.2014, from pages 631 to 637 and from the office of the 3rd respondent in respect of two Notices both bearing same Number viz., Na.Ka.No.2/2013/Se.Ve.Va.Saa/Kanchipuram, even dated 18.09.2014 insofar as the lands of the petitioner situated in Survey No.238B/7A and 238/7B (actually 238B/7B) is concerned and to quash the same.

2. Inasmuch as both the writ petitions are interconnected and the subject matter of challenge is the same, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this Common Order.

3. Arguing the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 33576 of 2013, Mr. N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that, in the year 1986, the petitioner's family members started a School called “Shalom School” on the western side of GST Road near Vandalur with 1200 students and 50 Teaching & Non-Teaching Staff. Since the said school buildings are covered by the impugned notices issued by the 2nd respondent for acquisition, the present writ petition has been filed not only to safeguard the interest of the School but also the Charitable Trust running it and the children of the locality who get education from there.

Proceeding further, learned counsel would submit that R2/District Revenue Officer-Land Acquisition, Koyambedu, had served the impugned notices on the petitioner on 09.11.2013 through a Messenger and as the said Notices failed to exhibit the actual extent of land required for acquisition, the petitioner had addressed the authorities to furnish the Land Plan Schedule to know the exact portion of the land sought to be acquired, before making his objections. Since the purpose of giving objections is to point out the incorrectness in the project and to demonstrate that there is flaw in the acquisition proceedings, due to denial of a copy of the project report and also the information about the actual extent of land sought to be acquired, the petitioner was unable to understand as to how the respondents have come to the conclusion that the land in question was also really required for the Project. If the extent of the land is known and the same is found to be meager, suggesting that it is a bona fide requirement, then, the petitioner would not even object to the acquisition and would even happily hand over his land. But the second respondent, without even informing the actual extent sought to be acquired and without furnishing a copy of the Project Rep