The court affirmed that compensation for land acquisition must be based on legally established values, ensuring equity, and mandated interest payment from the date of possession, adhering to statutory provisions.

ORDER :

S.Sounthar, J.

The Writ Petition is filed by the land owner affected by Land Acquisition Proceedings, challenging the Notification in Na.Ka.No.250/2022/A1, dated 06.10.2022 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 15(2) of TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT , 2001 and final award passed in Award No.21/2023 in Sl.Nos.1 and 2 dated 31.10.2023 fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq.ft., and calculating interest from 08.10.2022 and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to pass final award by fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft., in respect of subject lands in Survey Nos.432/1C and 452/1A1B with interest from31.12.2014.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the subject lands having purchased the same under a Sale Deed dated 29.12.2006 registered as Document No.6327/2007. For the purpose of widening Maduravoyal- Valasarawakkam Road, the respondents had acquired 50.30 cents of petitioner's land situated in the above mentioned survey numbers. At the time of issuing Section 15(2) notification in the year 2014, only the land of the petitioner with an extent of 33.57 cents was covered by the notification. The remaining extent of petitioner's land namely 16.73 cents (8.65 cents in S.No.432/1C and 8.08 cents in S.No.452/1A1B) was utilised by the respondents even though it was not covered by the Land Acquisition Notification. Later, it was found by the respondents that the above said land, subject matter of the present writ petition, was not covered by the earlier Land Acquisition Notification issued in the year 2014. Therefore, a fresh notification was issued under Section 15(2) of the TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT , 2001 on 06.10.2022 for acquisition of subject land, which was already taken possession by the respondents as early as 2018. Thereafter, the award was passed fixing compensation to subject land at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq.ft. However, in respect of the remaining extent of the petitioner's land, which was acquired even in the year 2014, compensation was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come by way of this writ petition.

3. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's land covered by the 2014 notification and impugned notification issued on 06.10.2022 are situated adjacent to each other and therefore, fixing Rs.4,000/- per sq.ft., as the compensation amount for the lands acquired in the year 2022 as against the compensation of Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft., fixed for adjacent land acquired in the year 2014 is highly inequitable. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondents calculated interest only from the date of fresh notification issued under Section 15(2) (i.e., from 06.10.2022). However, respondents have been in possession of the land even from 01.06.2018. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments:-

(i) Chitrabai and another vs. Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions) and another reported in (2021) 18 SCC 528 .

(ii) Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Ravindra Kumar and others reported in (2022) 13 SCC 468 .

4. Mr.R.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the compensation fixed in the award passed by the Competent Authority, he has alternative remedy of seeking reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and