Nizamuddin2 v. The Superintending EngineerHighways AdministrationM.O.S.R.T. & H. Department of Road Transport and HighwaysChennai

O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamusforbearing the first respondent from invoking the provisions of theControl of the National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (inshort "the Act") interfering with the petitioners' private property inany manner including demolition of their property to the extent of4,650 sq. ft. in S. No.19/1A1A1 at Village No.42, Kottapattu Village,Tiruchirappalli Taluk and District without following the appropriateprocedures contemplated under law and without a rule being enactedunder Section 23 and 26 of the Act 13 of 2003.2.At the outset, it is to be stated that this writ petition isa sequel to W.P. No.1630 of 2007 ordered on 24.03.2007 in which thepetitioners' complaint is that even after the said orders of thisCourt, neither Rules were framed under Section 23 and 26 nor thepetitioners were shown documents establishing the fact that the landalleged to be encroached by way of demolition is not being establishedas a Highways land. It is stated by the petitioners herein that inthe counter- affidavit in the said writ petition, the respondent hadspecifically stated that the land in question is neither occupied norrequired for National Highways and is required only for the purpose oflaying pipeline of TWAD Board, which has no legal right enforceablethrough the Highways Authority.3.Coming to the case of the petitioners, they jointlypurchased an extent of 4,650 sq. ft. of land in S. No.19/1A1A1 atVillage No.42, Kottapattu Village, Tiruchirappalli Taluk,Tiruchirappalli District vide document No.2294/2003 dated 18.10.2003and document No.1208/2004 dated 04.06.2004 from one Rajendran andMohammed Siddique respectively and the said extent of land is a pattaland and was in the enjoyment of the petitioners' predecessors intitle for several decades. 4.It is their case that the entire Act is taken under Act 13of 2003 under which Section 23 provides certain deeming provisionrelating to the ownership and vesting of land in respect of a HighwayAuthority and under Section 23(3), the petitioners are enabled toobject the claim of the Highway Authority which is required to passappropriate orders either accepting or rejecting the claim and underSection 23(2) of the Act, the Highways Authorities are expected tomaintain records in the prescribed manner showing the vesting ofparticular lands relating to Highway and the question of taking awaytheir property and its title which has become final under the PattaPass Book, does not at all arise to the Highways Authority.5.Their further case is that under Section 26(3) of the Act,notice of removal of unauthorised encroachment shall be given in theprescribed format and since no rule has been made for this purpose,Section 26 can not at all be invoked. According to the petitioners, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ they have the revenue records relating to patta under Patta Pas BookAct issued in their favour, they have also got building planningpermission and the property was purchased by them during 2004 withtitle from 1963 and as such, the respondents' action to take awaytheir property is against such records.6.Earlier, the first respondent, vide his order dated21.12.2006 issued under Section 26(2) of the Act, had required thepetitioners to remove the encroached area of 228 sqm. at No.1, KingsHospital, By-pass Road, TVS Tollgate, Tiruchirapalli and had alsogiven them an opportunity to make their representation, if any,followed by personal hearing. Accordingly, the petitioners made arepresentation dated 23.12.2006 raising their objections and alsoappeared for hearing on 27.12.2006. Pursuant thereto, the firstrespondent, vide his order dated 27.12.2006, directed the RevenueAuthorities for measuring the petitioners' property and for markingthe boundary of National Highways in the presence of National Highwaysauthorities and the petitioners and further observed that action maybe initiated in the event of any encroachment. Challenging thisnotice dated 27.12.2006, as already stated, the petitioners filed awrit petition in W.P. No.1630 of 2007 and this Court, on 24.03.2007,disposed of the said writ petition with the following direction:"The fourth respondent shall issue notice to thepetitioners and respondents 1 to 3 fixing the time and datefor inspection, survey and marking of the National Highwayin the property in question and thereafter direct theconcerned Revenue Authorities to undertake such anexercise. If any encroachment is found, it is open torespondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the petitioners interms of Section 26(2) of the Act by complying with all therequirements of the provisions contained therein. Thepetitioners shall cooperate with the Revenue Authorities inthe inspection, survey and marking of the NationalHighway".7.As per the aforesaid direction of this Court, the fourthrespondent issued a notice dated 26.04.2007 fixing the inspection andsurvey of the petitioners' property on 09.05.2007 at 11 a.m. andopposing the manner of inspection conducted on 09.05.2007, thepetitioners addressed an objection letter dated 09.05.2007 to theNational Highways with regard to the measurement of their lands by theauthorities concerned, followed by a letter dated 24.05.2007 to givethem an opportunity before proceeding further, as per this Court'sorder dated 24.03.2007. Since the petitioners have constructed ahospital in the land in question with proper sale deed and mutation inrevenue records and the said hospital has been serving the public andsince the action of the Highways authorities to demolish their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property without any acquisition to the effect and without followingthe procedure affects their right guaranteed under Article 300 (A)read with 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the petitioners have filed thepresent writ petition for the relief as stated above.8.The third respondent has filed counter contending that:a.as per Section 5 of the National Highway Act, theCentral Government, may, by notification in OfficialGazette, direct that any function related to thedevelopment or any National Highway shall subject toconditions if any as may be specified in that notificationalso be exercised by the Government of the State withinwhich the National Highway situated or by any office orauthority subordinate to the Central Government or theState Government; originally, the Central Government hasentrusted the roads with the State Government andsubsequently after constitution of the National HighwayAuthority, pursuant to the powers conferred under Section11 of the Act, the Central Government entrusted the stretchof NH-45 to the National Highways Authority of India by itsGazette Notification dated 04.02.1999 and after legislationof control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act,2002 which was notified by the Central Government, theremoval of encroachments on the National Highways has beenentrusted with the Administrator appointed by the CentralGovernment and the Central Government under Notificationdated 20.01.2005 has established the National Highwaysadministration in respect of each highways including NH-45stretch and this notification was subsequently amended by anotification dated 23.02.2006 based on which the RegionalOfficer/Superintending Engineer, Ministry of Shipping, RoadTransport and Highways, Chennai who is the first respondenthas been authorised to exercise the powers and dischargethe functions on the Highways administration; the Rulescalled Highways Administration Rules, 2004 has beennotified by the Government of India which provide for theexercise of the powers and function by the Highwaysadministration which also provides the format for serviceof notices for removal of unauthorised occupation in theHighway land;b.the Regional Officer, Chennai, viz., theSuperintending Engineer (Regional Officer) Ministry ofShipping, Road Transport and Highways, Regional Office,Chennai has been authorised by the Government of India toexercise the powers of the Highways Administration andthus, it is clearly established that HighwaysAdministration is authorised to issue notices toencroachers under sub-section (2) of 26, Control of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 pertainingto the removal of encroachment;c.under National Highway Tribunal Rules, 2003, anyparty aggrieved by the orders of the Highway Administrationcan approach the National Highway Tribunal for redressal ofsuch grievance by filing an application and as such, thiswrit petition is not at all maintainable;d.the allegation of the petitioner that no Ruleswere framed as contemplated under Section 23 and 26 of Act13 of 2003 is false as the Highways Administration Rules,2004 has been framed and the same has come into force fromthe date on which the Act has come into force;e.consequent to the observation of this Court andbased upon the request from the Divisional Engineer,National Highways, Tiruchirapalli to remove theencroachment, the first respondent sent notices underSection 26(2) to about 15 persons including the petitionerwho are all encroachers on the National Highways and theseparties were also given opportunity to plead their casebefore the first respondent on 27.12.2006;f.on 27.12.2006, the petitioners, represented bytheir Power Agent and also other recipients appeared beforethe first respondent and submitted various documents and atthe time of hearing, it was requested by all the partiesunanimously for measuring the properties for demarcation ofNational Highways boundary by the Revenue Authorities inthe presence of the National Highways Authority and revenueofficials and accordingly, the first respondent, by hiscommon order dated 27.12.2006 ordered to demarcate theright of way of National Highway and take appropriateaction, if encroachment is found and established.g.Pursuant to the directions of the firstrespondent, measurements have been taken by the Surveyofficials in the presence of the Revenue officials and NHAIand it was found that there is an encroachment on theNational Highway by the petitioner to the tune of 228 sq.mtr. and even before completion of this process, thepetitioner has approached this Court by filing 1630 of 2007challenging the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the firstrespondent and pursuant to this Court's direction toconduct the survey, again a notice dated 09.05.2007 wasgiven by the District Collector to the petitioner; therevenue officials surveyed the road in the presence of theProject Director of National Highways Authority of Indiaand the petitioners' Power Agent and the Minutes wererecorded on 09.05.2007 about surveying and demarcation and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners as well as the officials have signed theMinutes;h.by virtue of the survey conducted by the Revenueofficials and by virtue of establishing the fact that thereis encroachment of 228 sq. mtrs., the first respondentagain, by his notice dated 11.06.2007 issued under Section26(2) of the Act, fixed the hearing on 15.06.2007 as tohearing of removal of encroachments pursuant to which thepetitioners appeared for enquiry before the firstrespondent on 15.06.2007 and submitted their objections anddue to the fact that the petitioners have filed this writpetition, no further orders have been made by the firstrespondent and thus even before the first respondent couldmake an order as contemplated under Section 26 of the Act,the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with themere object to forestall the enquiry conducted by the firstrespondent;i.the petitioner's allegation that the land isacquired for the purpose of TWAD Board and that it is notrequired for National Highways is false as the land thathas already been acquired for the National Highways has nowbeen encroached by some of the encroachers including thepetitioners and the same is now sought to be removed; afterremoval of the encroachment, a portion of the land isrequired for laying the pipelines by the TWAD Board and thepipelines are laid in such a way that they do not affectthe formation of National Highway over the places whereencroachments are removed;j.as admitted by the petitioners, they are theowners of lands in S.No.19/1A1A1 and the survey conductedby the Revenue officials on 09.05.2007 reveals that anextent of 3.04 acres was acquired for extension of NH-45comprising SF Nos.19/1B and 19/2B having an extent of 0.88acres and 2.16 acres respectively and both these extentshave been clubbed and a total extent of 3.04 acres has beenacquired and a revised survey number of 19/1B has beenassigned as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officerbearing Award No.1/59 dated 22.01.1959 and change to thiseffect was also done in the revenue record.k.mere granting of patta by itself would not conferany title as held by this Court as well as the SupremeCourt as patta is not a document reflecting title but itonly reflects the Revenue entries and as such, any ordermade under Patta Passbok would not in any way affect thetitle entitlement of National Highways as it is a NationalHighway road. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ l.After the passing of orders by the firstrespondent, action will be taken to evict the encroachmentin the location; the Highways administration/RegionalOffice, Chennai, while reserving its final orders hasperused the revenue records submitted before it and thus,it was established that part of the constructed structureof the King's Hospital was found encroaching the land inS.F. No.19/1B and the Revenue authorities have alsoindicated in their report that S.F. No.19/1A and 1B, 2A and2B have been sub-divided from 19/1 and 2 and during 1959 asper Reference dated 14.03.1959 by virtue of award no.1/59dated 22.01.1959 for the construction of by-pass road inthis location;m.the petitioners' patta appears to have beenissued during 1963 for S.F. No.19/1A1A1 whereas as per theRevenue records, it is established beyond all reasonabledoubts that the portion of structure measuring 228 sq.mtrs. is lying only in S.F. No.19/1B based on surveyrecords prepared during 1959 and the Tahsildar,Tiruchirapalli has also inter alia avouched that the partof petitioners' structure is lying in S.F. No.19/1B onlyand as such, the petitioners have not substantiated theirclaim by producing any clinching documentary evidence thatthe entire structure is lying in S.F. No.191A1A1 beforeHighway administration;n.all the formalities adumbrated in the Control ofNational Highways (Land and Traffic) Act 2002 have beenobserved by the Highways Administration / Regional Office,Chennai and the land in question is absolutely owned byNHAI and the proceedings have been kept in abeyance by thefirst respondent after completing enquiry owing to the stayorder passed by this Court; thus, it is confirmed by theRevenue officials that part of Kings Hospital to an extentof 228 sq. mtrs. constructed in S.F. No.19/1B belongs toNHAI and above all, at the instance of the petitioner, theTahsildar, as per his letter dated 14.06.2007, has statedthat the part of Kings Hospital structure is within S.F.No.19/1B and it is established that an extent of 228 sq.mtrs. has been encroached by the petitioners in S.F.No.19/1B which belongs to NHAI; ando.the petitioners are not entitled to seek therelief since the land in S.F. No.19/1B measuring an extentof 228 sq. mtrs involved in this case has been wellestablished by the Revenue authorities as Highways land byearlier acquisition and it is also admitted by the adjacentland owners who have removed their encroachments bythemselves and the encroachment of the petitioners alonestands in the stretch of NH-45 which hinders the formation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of road and in view of these reason, the writ petition isliable to be dismissed.9.Heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe petitioner, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor Generalof India appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar,learned Additional Government Pleader for the fourth respondent.10.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner hascontended that as per Section 23(2), the Highways authorities areexpected to maintain records in the prescribed manner showing thevesting of rights of lands with the Highways and in the absence of anysuch records, the respondents are estopped from taking away thepetitioners' property and its title which is final under the PattaPass Book Act coupled with building planning permission. Pointing outSection 26(3) of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel has contendedthat no notice of removal of encroachment has been given to thepetitioner in the prescribed format and that too in respect of a landwhich does not belong to Highways. It is also contended by him thatthe acquisition proceedings do not clearly specify the metes andbounds of the petitioners' lands alleged to have come within theHighways land. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel has contendedthat the land which houses the petitioners' hospital has beenpurchased by the petitioners with proper sale deed and mutation inrevenue records which will have a final say in the matter. 11.The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, percontra, has contended that as per this Court's order dated 24.03.2007,when the respondents had carried out demarcation of boundary ofNational Highways in the presence of Highways authorities on whichoccasion, the petitioners' Power Agent was also present and had alsogiven an opportunity of hearing to various encroachers on 15.06.2007in which the petitioners' Power Agent attended and had also signed inthe Register for having attended the enquiry, the petitioners areestopped from contending that the respondents have acted in violationof Section 26(3) of the Act. Also, by bringing to the notice of thisCourt the letter dated 25.05.2007 addressed by the petitioners' PowerAgent to the third respondent seeking grant of ten days' time tovacate the building, the learned Additional Solicitor General hascontended that the petitioners have obtained an order of interiminjunction suppressing all these material facts aiming to stall theremoval of encroachment. 12.Assailing the case of the petitioners that the land soughtto be acquired by the respondents is their patta land, the learnedAdditional Solicitor General has explained as to how the respondentsare correct in initiating the proceedings to remove the encroachmentmade by the petitioners. According to him, before acquisition, landswere in S.No.19/1 and 19/2; while S.No.19/1 was sub-divided as 19/1Aand 19/1B, S.No.19/2 was sub-divided as 19/2A and 19/2B; while 19/1Ahad undergone various sub-divisions, 19/2A remained unacquired and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19/1B and 19/2B measuring 0.88 acres and 2.16 acres totalling 3.04acres were acquired and given S.No.19/1B and these have also beencertified by the Revenue Authorities in the Revenue records vide page6 of the typedset of the respondents and as such, the land sought tobe achieved is in S.No.19/1B which does not belong to the petitionersand this fact also has been suppressed by the petitioners.13.The learned Additional Solicitor General has further arguedthat it is a settled proposition that the concept of eminent domain isan essential attribute of every State and when there is a claim ofindividual's rights over the public interest, it is only the publicinterest which will prevail upon the individual's interest and assuch, the respondents have every right to proceed against thepetitioner.14.Finally, attacking the contention of the learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioner that no rule has been framed by therespondents under Section 23 or Section 26 of Act, the learnedAdditional Solicitor General has contended that the said rules arefound in page 15 of the typedset of papers filed by the respondents.15.Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length andperused the material documents placed before this Court.16.A careful analysis of the facts would reveal that the landin question was acquired by the respondents in 1959 by Award No.1/59dated 22.01.1959. Before that, all the lands were in S. No.19/1 and19/2. The S.No.19/1 was sub-divided as 19/1A and 19/1B. While 19/1Arelated to unacquired part of the land, the land in S.No.19/1B relatedto the acquired portion. Similarly, while S.No.19/2A related to theunacquired portion, S.No.19/2B related to the acquired portion. In course of time, S.No.19/1A had undergone several sub-divisions whichinclude S.No.19/1A1. While an extent of 0.88 cents of land wasacquired in S.No.19/1B, 2.16 acres were acquired in S.No.19/2B thus,leading to a total acquisition of 3.04 acres. Thus, two portions ofland had been clubbed together and given a new S.No.19/1B and the samehas been certified by the revenue authorities. An extract of therevenue records has been filed in the typedset of papers filed by therespondents. Therefore, it is clear that the land in question, whichis acquired for a public cause, is comprised in S.No.19/1B and theextent of land shown is 3.04 acres which do not form part of 19/1A1.17.While that being the position, the petitioners have jointlypurchased an extent of 4,650 sq.ft. of land in S.No.19/1A1A1 atVillage No.42, Kottapattu Village, Tiruchirapalli Taluk and Districtvide document no.2294 of 2003 dated 18.10.2003 and document no.1208 of2004 dated 04.06.2004 from one Rajendran and Mohd. Siddik repectivelyand the said extent of land is shown as a patta land and was in theenjoyment of the petitioners’ predecessors in title. The main stand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioners is that since they are having valid patta andrevenue records relating to patta under Patta Passbook Act issued intheir favour, they are the owners of the land and they have got theirover their property.18.In such a situation, the respondents have acquired the landin question for a public purpose and in order to proceed with theproject, a notice under Section 26(3) of the Act has been issued forremoval of encroachment to the extent of 228 sq.m. at Village No.42,Kings Hospital, By-Pass Road, TVS Tollgate, Tiruchirapalli. Also,liberty was given to the petitioners to make a representation, if any,followed by personal hearing. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners madea representation on 23.12.2006 raising their objections and alsoappeared for hearing on 27.12.2006 and thereafter, the firstrespondent on 27.12.2006, directed the revenue authorities formeasuring the petitioners’ property and for marking the boundary ofthe National Highway in the presence of the National Higwaysauthorities and the petitioners and further observed that action maybe initiated in the event of any encroachment.19.As already stated, the above notice dated 27.12.2006 waschallenged by the petitioners in W.P. No.1630 of 2007 and this Court,by an order dated 24.03.2007, disposed of the said writ petition withthe following direction:“The fourth respondent shall issue notice to thepetitioners and respondents 1 to 3 fixing the time anddate for inspection, survey and marking of the NationalHighway in the property in question and thereafter directthe concerned Revenue Authorities to undertake such anexercise. If any encroachment is found, it is open to therespondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the petitioners interms of Section 26(2) of the Act by complying with allthe requirements of the provisions contained therein. Thepetitioners shall cooperate with the Revenue Authoritiesin the inspection, survey and marking of the NationalHighway.”20.In furtherance to the above direction of this Court, thefourth respondent issued a notice to the petitioners on 26.04.2007fixing the inspection and survey of the petitioners’ property on09.05.2007 at 11 a.m. The petitioners, opposing the manner ofinspection conducted on 09.05.2007, addressed an objection letter onthe same day to the National Highways with regard to the measurementof their lands by the authorities concerned and further addressed aletter to the respondents on 24.05.2007 requesting them to give theman opportunity before proceeding further claiming that they have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ constructed a hospital in the land in question with proper sale deedand mutation in the revenue records and the said hospital has beenserving the public at large.21.According to Section 5 of the National Highway Act, theCentral Government, may, by notification in Official Gazette, directthat any function related to the development or any National Highway,shall subject to conditions if any as may be specified in thatnotification also be exercised by the Government of the State withinwhich the National Highway situated or by any office or authoritysubordinate to the Central Government or the State Government.Originally, the Central Government has entrusted the roads with theState Government and subsequently, after constitution of the NationalHighway Authority, pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 11of the Act, the Central Government entrusted the stretch of NH-45 tothe National Highways Authority of India by its Gazette Notificationdated 04.02.1999 and after legislation of the control of NationalHighways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 which was notified by theCentral Government, the removal of encroachments on the NationalHighways has been entrusted with the Administrator appointed by theCentral Government and the Central Government, under Notificationdated 20.01.2005, has established the National Highways administrationin respect of each highways including NH-45 stretch and thisNotification was subsequently amended by a Notification dated23.02.2006 based on which the Regional Officer/SuperintendingEngineer, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Chennaiwho is the first respondent has been authorized to exercise the powersand discharge the functions on the Highways administration. The rulescalled Highways Administration Rules, 204 have been notified by theGovernment of India which provide for the exercise of the powers andfunction by the Highways administration which also provides the formatfor service of notices for removal of unauthorized occupation in theHighways land and the respondents have control and power to remove theencroachment on the National Highway as an authority authorized andcompetent to initiate action against the encroachers.22.It is seen that pursuant to the order of this Court asindicated above, the NH-45 boundary in between km 322/0 and 323/0 hadbeen demarcated in the presence of the officers of the respondents on09.05.2007. In that process of hearing, the power agent of thepetitioners had participated and had also signed in the Register forappearing in the enquiry and the particulars of demarcation have beenprovided in the typedset of papers filed by the respondents. Further,the power agent of the petitioners had given a letter dated 25.05.2007to the Project Director, National Highways Authority of Indiarequesting to give ten days time upto 05.06.2007 to keep the plotvacant. That letter also has been annexed in the typedset of papers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, having attending the hearing and sought time to keep theplot vacant and when the order of this Court also has been giveneffect to by the respondents, the petitioners, further questioning theaction of the respondents, have filed this petition. 23.A consistent plea has been made by the respondents thatthe petitioners have all along suppressed the particulars of awardproceedings under which the land in question was acquired by theNational Highways and the fixation of boundaries under the Survey andBoundaries Act, 1923 and have now come before this Court with a prayerthat their possession and enjoyment of the land should not bedisturbed without following the procedure contemplated under law andwithout any rule being framed under Rule 23 or 26 of the Act 13 of2002. 24.Though it is the case of the petitioners that therespondents have not framed the rules under Section 23 or 26 of theAct 13 of 2003, the said rules do form part of the typedset of papersfiled by the respondents and that being the case, I find no force inthe argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioners that the non-framing of rules have vitiated theproceedings of the respondents and without framing such rules, thepetitioners shall not be disturbed. 25.Coming to the next contention raised by the learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioners that the land was originally acquired forthe purpose of TWAD Board and as such, it is not required for NationalHighways, I am of the considered opinion that this is an aspect comingunder the purview of the Central and State Governments inimplementation of a project meant for the public at large. Therespondents, bearing in mind the benefit of the public at large, hasinitiated the project and has proceeded in accordance with theprovisions of the Act and rules contemplated, particularly Section 5of the Act as extracted in one of the foregoing paragraphs. Also, itis not the case of the petitioners that the land in question is notused for public purpose when admittedly it is required by therespondents only for a public purpose. Therefore, here again, I donot find any force in the argument advanced by the learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioner. In this connection, it is to beborne in mind that it is a settled proposition that the powers underthe Act represent the powers of eminent domain vested in the Statewhich may need to be exercised even to the detriment of individuals' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property so long as it achieves a larger public interest and thisproposition is settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisionswhich has held that the concept of eminent domain is an essentialattribute of every State and that this concept is based on thefundamental principle that the interest and claim of the wholecommunity is always superior to the interest of an individual. In theinstant case, the NHAI, for the purpose of implementation of itsproject, is in need of the land in dispute. Thus, when the largerpublic interest is of paramount importance, the petitioner, being anindividual cannot claim right over the property in dispute,particularly when his land had already been acquired by the authorityconcerned long back.26.Lastly, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counselfor the petitioners that the petitioners have the revenue recordsrelating to patta under Patta Pas Book Act issued in their favour andthey have also got building planning permission and the property waspurchased by them during 2004 with title from 1963 and as such, therespondents' action to take away their property is against suchrecords. This contention of the learned Senior Counsel has to fall toground for the reason that it is a settled proposition, made by thisCourt as well as the Supreme Court, that mere grant of patta by itselfwould not confer any title as it is not a document reflecting titlebut reflecting mere revenue entries and any order made under the PattaPassbook Act would no way affect the title entitlement of NationalHighways Authority of India when the land in question has beenacquired for a public purpose and the award had already been passed inrespect of that land as early as in 1959 and especially so when thetotal extent of 3.04 acres had been acquired and a revised S.No.19/1Bhad been assigned as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer byaward no.1/59 dated 22.01.1959 and a change to this effect had alsobeen done in the revenue records. Therefore, it can sefely be heldthat in the absence of any conferment of title on the petitioners, theclaim made by them after the acquisition proceedings shall not dis-entitle the National Highways authority to proceed with their project.27.It is also seen that the patta appears to have been issuedduring 1963 for S.F. No.19/1A1A1 whereas as per the revenue records,it is established that the portion of structure measuring 228 sq.m. islying only in S.F. No.19/1B based on survey records prepared during1959 and the Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli has also inter-alia avouchedthat the portion of the petitioners’ structure is lying in S.F.No.19/1B only. That apart, from a perusal of the typedset of paperswhich include documents such as “A” Register of Kottapattu village,Field Measurement Book and FMB sketch showing the land in questionbefore and after sub-division, it is clear that the respondents havemaintained the records which they are obligated to maintain underSection 26(2) of the Act. Thus, when the fact remains so, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contention made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners thatthe respondents have not maintained the records required to bemaintained under Section 26(2) of the Act does not have legs to stand. 28.Thus, taking all the aforesaid factors into considerationand also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, Iam of the considered view that the the petitioners have not made out aprima facie case for grant of relief sought by them and the writpetition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.29.However, taking note of the various factors under which thepetitioners claim to have purchased the land in question and also thefact that they have constructed a hospital in the said land and havebeen concentrating in medical care in that area by incurring aconsiderable sum towards its construction and are also recurring day-to-day expenditure, with a view to give an equitable solution, I am ofthe considered view that the respondents who are the authorities underthe Government of India are competent to work out whether anycompensation can be paid to the petitioners, though they are notobligated under any statute but only on the ground of equity andparticularly, keeping in mind the service rendered by the petitionersin the field of medicine. Accordingly, I direct the petitioners toaddress a representation to the respondents within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, seekingcompensation by explaining their pitiable plight and on receipt ofsuch representation from the petitioners, the respondents are directedto consider and pass appropriate orders therein within a period offour weeks.In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed with the abovedirections. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitionis closed.cadSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1The Superintending EngineerHighways AdministrationM.O.S.R.T. & H. Department of Road Transport and HighwaysChennai – 600 090 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2The Assistant Divisional EngineerNational HighwaysTiruchirapalli – 203The Project Director (I/C)The National Highways Authority of IndiaTiruchirapalli – 14The District CollectorTiruchirapalli DistrictTiruchirapalli+ One cc to Mr. P. Wilson Assistant Solicitor General of India,SR 72471+ One cc to M/s. Law & Law SR 74226BS (co)sg 13/12/07 order inW.P. No.19028 of 200707.12.2007