The court clarified compensation obligations in land acquisition, ruling the National Highways Authority accountable for compensation when land is unacquired but utilized for highway projects.

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

The State Highways Authority has preferred this intra Court appeal as against the order dated 21.10.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.21521 of 2017.

2. The first respondent / writ petitioner had approached the Writ Court seeking for a direction to pay the compensation in respect of the lands belonging to him in Survey No.60/19 as the same has been unauthorisedly used and put in use by forming a road by the Highway Authorities. The Writ Court by relying on the inspection report dated 14.10.2024 arrived at a conclusion that the lands of the writ petitioner were used by the Highways Authorities and already road has been formed without acquisition and paying compensation to the land owner. The Writ Court, after arriving at such a conclusion, had directed the appellant State Highways Authority to pay compensation to the writ petitioner, within a period of four months.

3. It is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant that presently the road has been handed over to the State Highways Authorities. But it is only the National Highways Authority which had implemented the project and therefore, the National Railways Authority ought to have paid the compensation to the land owners before taking possession of the lands. When the National Highways Authority has not made such payment, it is for the writ petitioner to seek compensation only from the National Highways Authority. But however, when the State Highways Authority is not even a party to the writ petition, the Writ Court issued the impugned directions by directing the State Highways Authority to pay compensation to the writ petitioner, which cannot be sustained and as such, he seeks for indulgence of this Court.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent /

National Highways would submit that though the National Highways Authority had completed and executed the project, the road has already been handed over to the State Highways Department as early as in the year 2011 and therefore, now the road is within the maintenance and possession of the State Highways Authorities. It is for the State Highways Authority to make the necessary compensation to the writ petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent / writ petitioner would submit that when admittedly the patta lands belonging to him had been taken over without acquiring or paying any compensation and already the road has been formed, he is only interested in receiving the compensation, which is to be paid either by the appellant and other official respondents.

6. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner / first respondent is the owner of the lands measuring an extent of 0.11.50 hectares in S.No.60/19 and 0.11.50 hectares in S.No.60/20. It is also not in dispute that already the link road project has been executed by the National Highways Authority. It is for the National Highways Authority to compensate the land owners by paying the compensation that has arrived at. The State Highways Authority ought to have acquired and handed over the lands to the National Highways Authority, for which, the National Highways Authority should have paid the compensation to the land owners before executing the project.

8. However, without resorting to acquisition, the lands of the petitioner had already been taken over and utilised for the Highways Project. Now, when the properties of the petitioner have already been taken over and utilised without p