DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. SIDDHESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein filed the writ petition claiming that his possession of Door Nos. 63A and 64A at Puliampatti Village, Puliampatti Panchayat, Omalur Taluk, Salem District shall not be interfered with in the acquisition proceedings without complying with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Even at the stage of admission, the learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if the respondents determine the compensation, disposed of the writ petition directing the fourth respondent to conclude the acquisition proceedings and determine the compensation. Against this, the authorities of the State have filed W.A. No. 789 of 2005 and the Union of India has filed W.A. No. 1689 of 2005.

(2.) According to Mr. R. Vijay Narayan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India, viz. the appellant in W.A. No. 1689 of 2005, the first respondent was not entitled to any hearing, much less compensation. According to him, the Union of India ought to have been heard before the order was passed and even the cause title in the writ petition was wrong; the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory authority and cannot represent the Union of India. He also submitted that the first respondent is an encroacher on a cart track and his encroachment and occupation is illegal and unauthorised. He further stated that the requirements of the Act were duly complied with and publication has also been effected. According to him, in none of the notifications effected under the Act, the name of the first respondent was found, because the lands under the illegal occupation of the first respondent were Government poromboke lands and such lands should be transferred to the Central Government authorities before giving a land transfer proposal and since that was separately proceeded with, the name of the first respondent was not found in the notification. Learned senior Counsel referred to several decisions in which the Supreme Court had explained the nature of right of such encroachers or trespassers. He also submitted that the right of the owners of the lands is very limited under the Act.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, viz. the appellants in W.A. No. 789 of 2005 submitted that the Revenue records and other documents show that the first respondent was a rank trespasser with absolutely no right over the lands.