Purchaser of land used as public road prior to acquisition cannot claim compensation; writ relief barred by delay and laches.

Heard.

2. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.3.2025 passed in W.P.No.1736 of 2022, the unsuccessful petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.

3. The writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the fourth respondent dated 24.11.2021 and consequently direct the fourth respondent to pay compensation to the appellant in respect of his lands of an extent of 0.41.00 hectares in T.S.No.31/3 situated at Manalur, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the relief sought by the appellant cannot be granted by the Writ Court exercising its discretion. Challenging the same, the appellant is before us.

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had purchased property comprised in T.S.No.31/1 to an extent of 2 acres 92 cents through a registered sale deed dated 1.11.2005 from the sons of one Seperumal and after purchase, the said survey number was sub-divided into 31/2, 31/3 and 31/4. In the year 2006, the Highways Authorities started putting up a road by encroaching upon the property belonging to the appellant to an extent of 1 acre 1 cent and the road work was completed in the year 2009. Since the land of the appellant was involved in laying the road, the appellant has submitted a representation on 24.3.2020 to the first respondent for payment of compensation towards acquisition of the land comprised in T.S.No.31/3.

5.2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on

3.6.2020 the fourth respondent addressed a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Highways, informing that the property comprised in T.S.No.31/3 was acquired by the Highways Department before 1997 and a Thar road was laid in the said property during 1997 and 1998 and no records available for acquisition of the said land prior to 1997 and 1998 and, therefore, advised the fifth respondent to conduct an enquiry. As no enquiry was conducted, again the appellant sent a representation on 4.12.2020, followed by another representation dated 12.2.2021, to the first respondent for payment of compensation in respect of the land comprised in T.S.No.31/3.

5.3. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that, on

24.11.2021, the fourth respondent sent a letter to the appellant informing that a notice has been issued by the Special Officer, Urban Survey, Vridhachalam in the Natham Land Survey declaring the entire 0.41.00 hectares of one of the four sub-divisions, T.S.No.31/3, as a road. The owner of the said land, namely Seperumal, has not raised any objection to the said notice and the entire extent of 0.41.00 hectares in T.S.No.31/3 is currently in public use.

5.4. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the fourth respondent ought to have seen that only in 2009 the Thar road has been laid in the property in T.S.No.31/3 and since then the appellant has been making repeated representations and, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 of the fourth respondent is arbitrary and unjust. In fact, the fourth respondent ought to have seen that the notice issued earlier is only with regard to sub-division and the opinion expressed by the fourth respondent is totally unjust. According to learned counsel, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the aforesaid aspects and, in fact, dismissed the writ petition on unsustainable grounds.

6. Supporting the findings recorded by the learned Single, the learned State counsel submitted that there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. He would further submit that the appellant having purchased the land in the year 2005 seeks compensation through the writ petition in the year 2022 as if the road was form