G. Samuthirapandian and Another vs District Collector, Kancheepuram District and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had placed before this Court a letter, dated 4.2.2013, issued by the second respondent stating that the respondents had taken possession of 59.5 sq. mts. of land, in Survey No. 68/2B1B, in Melamaiyur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, and the due compensation had also been paid, in respect of the said land, as per the Land Acquisition Guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had stated that the respondents had not taken possession of a larger extent of the land, as alleged by the petitioners in the present writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had not been in a position to show that a larger extent of the land had been acquired, as alleged by the petitioners in the present writ petition. In view of the statements made by the second respondent in his letter, dated 4.2.2013, stating that the extent of 59.5 sq. mts., of land in Survey No. 68/2B1B, in Melamaiyur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, had been acquired and possession had been taken, for the purpose of forming the Highways, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if the respondents are encroaching upon the land belonging to the petitioners, beyond the extent of 59.5 sq. mts., which had already been acquired, it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the same, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P. No. 1 of 2013 is closed.