Judgment : The petitioners in the above petitions were aggrieved by the order of the competent authority & Special District Revenue Officer(LA) National Highways Scheme, Kanchipuram in proceedings No.Rc.No.466/2005/NH dated 212. 2006 and the consequential letter in Rc.No.466/2005/NH dated 30.07.2007. The said proceedings are challenged in these writ petitions on the ground that the compensation determined is contrary to the established Rules and the legal Principles in respect of the petitioners land. 2. According to the petitioners, they purchased lands as above mentioned under registered sale deeds. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioners owned the said lands among larger extent of land in the said Survey numbers, ever since 1944 and the said lands have always been treated as private gramma natham lands in occupation of private individuals. Pursuant to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, the concerned authorities also issued a Town Survey Field Register, indicating the names of the petitioners as the registered holders of the lands in the survey numbers concerned and classifying the land as Gramma Natham and have also issued an enjoyment certificate in favour for the same. According to the petitioners, the Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu has been issuing various G.Os for effecting settlement of natham sites or village sites used for non-agricultural purpose in the entire area of Tamil Nadu, except the area of Old Madras City and for issuance of patta to the respective owners/occupiers. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.NO.1971, Revenue dated 110. 1988, whereby it has been specifically mentioned that all private holdings in natham areas and agricultural lands set apart for dwelling purposes will be registered as manai. The said G.O., specifically states that the lands in natham areas in respect of which the occupants have established their right of ownership, will be subdivided and pattas issued in their respective names. That G.O., further states that the Special Tahsildar in the respective areas will take up each holding as a Special case and issue notices to the owners as indicated in the land register for personal hearing. That G.O., further states that the Special Tahsildar in the respective areas will take up each holding as a Special case and issue notices to the owners as indicated in the land register for personal hearing. It is specifically mentioned in the G.O., that in case no settlement order has been issued by the Revenue Department, the Special Tahsildar will decide the ownership of the property on the basis of enjoyment for 30 years prior to the date of publication of the G.O. For the said prupose, oral and documentary evidence was to be taken and the Special Tahsildar was to pass a speaking order in each case. The said G.O., requires issuance of rough patta to be served through the Village Administrative Officer and objections on the rough patta and a hearing thereof. This was followed by another government notification dated 3. 2007, reiterating all that was mentioned in the above G.O., .3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent proceeded to issue a notification to acquire lands for the purpose of construction of free flow facilities within Chennai City to improve the access to the Golden quadrilateral corridor in Chennai District. The said notification was published on 18. 2005 and the petitioners satisfied all the conditions and criteria laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1971 dated 110. 1988 and the government notification dated 3. 2007, for issuance of patta in their favour in as much as the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have been in possession and occupation of the property for more than 30 years prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1971 dated 110. 1988 and as per the said G.O., read with the .Government Notification dated 3. 2007, such village ought to be classified as private manai and necessary private patta ought to have been issued. It is further submitted that the second respondent issued a letter to the petitioners on 15. 2006, stating that the lands belonging to the petitioners have been classified as per government records as a Village Natham. However, the second respondent insisted on the petitioners to get pattas for the said lands for payment of compensation. The second respondent also proceeded to pass another proceedings on 212. 2006 in Rc.No.466/2005/NH, classifying the lands belonging to the petitioners as Village Natham. However, the second respondent insisted on the petitioners to get pattas for the said lands for payment of compensation. The second respondent also proceeded to pass another proceedings on 212. 2006 in Rc.No.466/2005/NH, classifying the lands belonging to the petitioners as Village Natham. However, in the said proceedings, the second respondent has directed that compensation will be payable only for the structures standing on Natham lands after verification of ownership and there is no mention of payment of any compensation for the land belonging to the petitioners. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners were in possession of document of title relating back to more than 30 years and the names of the petitioners are also entered in the Town Survey Register as the owners of the land, the proceedings in Rc.No.466/2005/NH dated 30.7.2007 passed by the second respondent calling upon the petitioners to receive a compensation of Rs.15,67,297/- , Rs.32,375/- and Rs.13,88,595/-for the structures standing in the lands belonging to the petitioners. The said proceedings do not make a reference to the lands. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the said lands also especially, when their lands have been classified as Village Natham. There is no reason for the respondents to refuse the ownership of the petitioners over the land and that too when the petitioners proved title to the properties. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. .4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the first respondent in his submissions has strenuously contended that the petitioners are not eligible for compenstion of the lands in question since the lands are Government lands and no pattas are available in the names of the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot be treated as registered holders of the lands. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the Government of India have published a Notification under Section 3 A (1) of National Highways Act, 1956 regarding their intention to acquire lands required for construction of Grade Separate at Koyambedu junction In that Notification, the classification of the lands in question was mentioned as Government-Village Natham. In G.O.Ms.No.1971, dated 110. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the Government of India have published a Notification under Section 3 A (1) of National Highways Act, 1956 regarding their intention to acquire lands required for construction of Grade Separate at Koyambedu junction In that Notification, the classification of the lands in question was mentioned as Government-Village Natham. In G.O.Ms.No.1971, dated 110. 1988, the Government of Tamil Nadu has published a notification regarding the procedure to be followed in the settlement of Natham Sites. As far as Koyambedu Village is concerned, the Town Survey was already completed. No pattas have been issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the Authority has to act on the basis of Town Survey records only. Moreover, it is also contended by the learned Asst.Sol.General that the Competent Authority has the right to decide over the matter which involves public interest. Therefore, in respect of the lands in questions, the determination made by the Competent Authority is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity with the impugned proceedings. He further contended that under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the determination of the amount payable as compensation where any land is acquired vests with the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioners, who are having interest over their lands in question can go before the competent authority to claim compensation and accordingly, these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained. The Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent also argued on the same lines. 5. Heard Mr.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent. 6. I have carefully conidered the submission and the relevant provisions of law as well as the material documents annexed to the petitions. .7. Admittedly, the petitioners are purchasers and their predecessors-in-title owned the said lands and the said lands have always been treated as private gramma Natham lands in occupation of individuals. Pursuant to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. There is no dispute about the classification of the land as Grama Natham. Pursuant to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. There is no dispute about the classification of the land as Grama Natham. It is also not in dispute that the determination of compensation in respect of the lands in question are to be decided by the competent authority when it is required for public purposes like National Highways Scheme. Therefore, the impugned proceedings which are now under challenge in the above writ petitions are about the determination of the compensation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the compensation determined is only to the structures standing in the land and not to the lands and hence the same is challenged in these writ petitions. Under Section 3-g (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, it is provided that where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. 8. If the petitioners are aggrieved in respect of their interest or compensation determined to the lands, the competent authority can only decide the matter. It is seen from the proceedings of the Tahsildar and the District Collector concerned that proceedings have been initiated indicating the nature of the land and issuance of pattas. Had these proceedings been taken into account, there would not have been any difficulty for the competent authority to fix the compensation. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has come out with a suggestion that if the competent authority is prepared to take into account the proceedings dated 28. 2007 in respect of claim of compensation for the lands in question, the petitioners are prepared to go before the competent authority, for which, learned counsel for the respondent has also acceded. 9. In view of the above submission, I am not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of case. I am only looking into certain proceedings available before the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority explaining all the above proceedings including the proceedings dated 28. 2007. 9. In view of the above submission, I am not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of case. I am only looking into certain proceedings available before the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority explaining all the above proceedings including the proceedings dated 28. 2007. The second respondent, competent authority is also directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners claim for determination of compensation in respect of their properties in question in the light of the above said proceedings within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the competent authority shall also pass orders indicating the time for vacating the lands. With the above observation and direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.