Once the land vested with the government, the petitioners' claim to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them could not arise. Additionally, the court held that the petitioners' claim for compensation and alternate accommodation on private property could not be entertained without establishing a legal right, title, or interest in the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any coercive action or demolish the house of the petitioners situated at S. No. 14/5, Aringnar Anna Nagar, VII and VIII Street, Neelankarai, Chennai – 600 115 pursuant to the notices dated 28.11.2022 issued by the Second Respondent to the Petitioners enclosed in the annexure list until the compliance with the provisions of section 156 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 and in any event alternate accommodation or compensation to the Petitioners.)

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition claim to be in occupation of the area of an extent of 9500 sq. ft. known as Aringnar Anna Nagar, 7th and 8th Street, Chennai–600115, where they have constructed cement thatched houses for shelter of 50 families. It is their case that their families are leading life below poverty line in that property in which they have been in continuous possession without any disturbance and paying taxes to the concerned authorities. The said property in their occupation forms part of the land in S. No. 14/5, Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District, which has been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short), for the infrastructure project relating to formation of link-road and construction of bridge across Buckingham Canal connecting Rajiv Gandhi Salai and East Coast Road at Neelankarai for which the Government of Tamil Nadu has administratively sanctioned Rs. 204 crores in G.O. (Ms) No. 70, Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department dated 19.06.2014 under Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan.

2. According to the Petitioners, the Second Respondent had suddenly on 07.11.2022 issued notices to them stating that the said land has been acquired under the Act for the said project for which compensation has already been paid to the owner of the land and that they should vacate from that premises on or before 17.11.2022, failing which they will be evicted from there. The Petitioners, who were shocked to receive such notices, had submitted their explanations on 24.11.2022 to the Second Respondent stating that they had been in possession of that land for the last 35 years and have been paying taxes to the Government, but no notice was served on them with respect to the acquisition and in such circumstances, it was requested to stop further action to remove them from the possession of that property. At that stage, the Petitioners came to know that the Fourth and Fifth Respondents had falsely claimed and fraudulently obtained compensation of about Rs. 3,50,00,000/- from the Government. It is further stated that the Fourth Respondent, who is residing in the United States of America, has executed a Power of Attorney dated 02.03.2020 in favour of the Fifth Respondent, who has received compensation using it by furnishing false details as if the said property in S. No. 14/5 is vacant land without disclosing that the Petitioners have been in possession for 35 years in that property. It is alleged that the Fourth and Fifth Respondents had colluded with the officials and have caused loss to the exchequer with oblique motive. It is added that the information obtained on 28.02.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, reveals that the name of one Rajarathinam Pillai has been entered as the owner of the property in S. No. 14/5 in the revenue records and the Fourth and Fifth Respondents could not claim and obtain any compensation amount for the said property. It is contended that despite the said objections raised by the Petitioners, further notices dated 28.11.2022 have been issued by the Second Respondent reiterating that if they did not vacate by 09.12.2022 from that property, the encroachments of the Petitioners in the property would be removed. In that backdrop, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to rest