Compensation for land acquisition must be based on market value determined in compliance with statutory provisions, with opportunities given for claims submission.

ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 19.09.2023 and to consequently direct the first respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT , 2001 at Rs.4828/- per sq.mt for the land, along with value for the neem trees.

2. I have heard Mr. T. Gowtham, learned Senior Counsel, for M/s. KNS Law Chambers, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. B. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the lands belonging to the petitioner were notified under Section 15(1) of the TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT , 2001 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity], without following the mandate of Section 15(2). It is the further case of the petitioner that Section 16 , contemplating payment of compensation has also not been complied with and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation together with interest.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that though the petitioner is entitled to challenge the entire acquisition proceedings for want of Section 15(2) notification and non- compliance of Section 16 (1), taking into account that the property is certainly required for the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings had been initiated, the petitioner was magnanimous and offered to part with his valuable property. However, the respondents cannot take advantage of the same and deprive the petitioner of lawful compensation, that he is entitled to under the provisions of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel would also take me through the recommendations of the Tahsildar to pay compensation at Rs.4828/- per sq.mt and therefore, contend that the compensation offered at Rs.182/- per sq. mt., was wholly unjust and unfair. Learned Senior Counsel, would therefore, pray for the impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2024, to be set aside and direction been issued to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.4828/- per sq.mt, which has been recommended even by the Tahsildar.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others Vs. Government of Karnataka and others , 2025 SCC Online SC 20, to contend that the authorities will have to pay compensation on the date of taking possession and not on the date of the notification.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ajmal Khan, would submit that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to state that Section 15(2) of the Act was not complied with. He would submit that the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings at the stage of Section 15 and also again at the stage of award enquiry contemplated under Section 19 . He would further submit that the petitioner has not even challenged the Section 15(1) notification, but has only challenged the communication of the sixth respondent, whereunder, the petitioner was only called upon to remove the neem trees to enable the Highways Department to proceed with their work.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General would further refer to provisions of Section 16 of the Act and contend that the lands have already vested absolutely with the State and it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he is still in possession and at best, his possession even assuming has been admitted by the revenue authorities, would only amount to one as trespass and not as lawful