The deliberate failure to claim compensation for the land, despite being aware of the ownership and the opportunity to object to the acquisition, led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents or the subordinates from in any way interfering with the petitioner''s right to his property in S.No.34/3A1, Usilampatti Village, Madurai District (Corresponding to Patta 268), without acquiring the same as provided under the National Highways Act, 1965, or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.)

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus, forbearing the respondents or the subordinates from in any way interfering with the petitioner''s right to his property in S.No.34/3A1, Usilampatti Village, Madurai District (Corresponding to Patta 268), without acquiring the same as provided under the National Highways Act, 1965, or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The respondents have issued notification for acquisition of various lands in Usilampatti Village, Madurai District and issued notification No.3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner is the owner of the land in Survey No.34. In the said notification, under Serial No.680, the land in Survey No.34 in Usilampatti Village, Madurai North, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District was notified. After seeing the said notification, the petitioner has submitted the objection to the respondents in the format prescribed for the same. In the objection, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is the owner of the land in Survey No.34/3A and 34/3B. After considering the objections, the respondents have issued 3D Notification on 14.06.2018. However, a mistake has crept in. In Serial No.1044, the respondents have mentioned the Survey number as 34 and subdivision 3A, but wrongly mentioned the owner of land as Bakkiya Lakshmi, wife of Murugesan. In Serial No.1045 for the same Survey No.34 and for the subdivision 3B, the respondents have mentioned the name of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the subdivided land in 34/3A belongs to him. But it is deliberately mentioned the owner as Bakkiya Lakshmi. The said Bakkiya Lakshmi has appeared before the authorities and submitted that the land does not belong to her. The petitioner has also averred that the land belongs to him and not to the said Bakkiya Lakshmi. But the claim of the petitioner is since the respondents have wrongly mentioned the name of the said Bakkiya Lakshmi, the entire acquisition proceedings is vitiated. Since the petitioner is the land owner and without proper notice to the petitioner, the respondents cannot acquire.

3. The contention of the respondents is that once the survey number and the village is mentioned in 3A notification and when the petitioner had submitted objection, then nothing prevents the petitioner from pointing out the mistake crept in 3D notification and claim the award. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Parasurama Vaidyanathan Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary and Others reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 2644 (W.P.No.6469 of 2005 dated 06.06.2013). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

4. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Prima facie, when the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.474, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.5.90 approving the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of 82.84.0 hectares of land in Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District for the implementation of Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioner''s land comprised in S.No.390-1A and 2A1 was also acquired. After publication of the draft notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.II on 13.6.90, the same was also published in two Tamil daily newspapers, namely, Murosoli and Dinakaran on 16.6.90. Again the gist of the not