JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard Mr.K.Vaithyanathan, representing Mr.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.N.Subbarayalu, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner, whose land has been acquired for public purpose, has come up before this Court for a direction to the respondents to put the petitioner back in possession of 0.5 acres in S.No.558/3-B, situated in Hosur Town. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the wet land bearing Survey No.558/3-B of an extent of 0.10 cents and the value assessed was Rs.38,375/- and the petitioner purchased the same on 12.4.1973 from one B.Munusami alias Balappa, son of Begapalli Munuswamappa of Basthir Village, Avulpalli Post, Hosur Taluk. He was in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property. The property has been clearly demarcated for public purpose and as per the request of the Hosur Town Panchayat, the Government acquired the lands in S.Nos.737, 736/1, 736/2 etc., totally, an extent of 7.88 acres of lands in the year 1980 for the purpose of locating a bus stand. The bus stand was constructed under several schemes and during the year 1986, it was completed. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that the land in S.No.558/3-B is situated on the northern side of the bus stand of an extent of 10 cents. There was encroachment upon his land by the Hosur Town Panchayat and they have put up a culvert and laid the approach road to the bus stand from National Highway by-pass road. Originally, the formation and construction of the bus stand only was approved. The said approach road was not shown in the plan, and therefore, the petitioner approached Civil Court in O.S.No.28 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, praying for declaration of the petitioner's title to the suit property and for permanent injunction against the officials and their men, restraining them from trespassing and interfering with his possession and also for mandatory injunction directing them to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction put up by them. The District Collector who was a party to the suit, filed written statement claiming that the culvert is put up only in S.No.558/2 and in the road margin and not in the petitioner's land. 5. The District Collector who was a party to the suit, filed written statement claiming that the culvert is put up only in S.No.558/2 and in the road margin and not in the petitioner's land. 5. While so, the Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 4.3.1987 and the substance of the same is said to have been published in the village on 3.4.1987 and in the newspaper in Tamil and English dailies on 11.4.1987 and 11.5.1987 respectively. Pursuant to the notification, the objections were called for and the petitioner submitted his objections on 4.8.1987 and thereafter, the acquisition was made. In the said objection, the petitioner stated that without following the procedure under the Act, the officials in a high-handed manner, trespassed into my land and completed the work overnight which is in a total contravention of the principles of natural justice. 6. The petitioner therefore filed Writ Petition and sought to quash the land acquisition proceedings, dated 17.7.1987, 4.3.1987, 6.5.1987 and 9.5.1988 in W.P.No.9283 of 1988 and connected W.P.No.11621 of 1988, for three cents. The following common order was passed on 30.3.1995: "Therefore, at least for a period of 15 years from 1981 to 1995 the petitioner has been deprived of an extent of 4 cents of land without payment of compensation. Without trying to be exact, I approximately fix the compensation to the petitioner on account of the illegal occupation of his lands at Rs.25,000/-. This will not be taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award and fixing the compensation for the entire extent of 10 cents of land. Therefore, writ petition W.P.No.9283/1988 is dismissed directing the 1st respondent to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the trespass committed by the Town Panchayat in occupying the land in Survey No.558/3-B to an extent of four cents. It is open to the first respondent to recover this amount from the Town Panchayat or the Municipality which has succeeded the Town Panchayat. This amount shall be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 7. It is open to the first respondent to recover this amount from the Town Panchayat or the Municipality which has succeeded the Town Panchayat. This amount shall be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 7. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.21358 of 2000 for a direction to the respondent to pay just and reasonable compensation at the prevailing market value in respect of the land measuring 10 cents in Survey No.558/3-B in Hosur Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District, under the provisions of the Act or in any event in lieu of compensation, to direct release of 6 cents in Survey No.558/3-B of Hosur Village, Dharmapuri District lying vacant not utilised for any public purpose. In the said W.P., the following order was passed: "Therefore, considering the said circumstances that an award has already been passed and the amount if lying in the revenue treasury, the petitioner is free to receive the award amount without prejudice to his claim under Section 18 of the Act. There is no justification for not having made any reference under Section 18 of the Act inspite of the petitioner having made request to the said effect. Therefore the respondents are directed to refer the matter before the Civil Court under Section 18." 8. In the above stated position, finally, the award was ordered on 20.12.1996, following the award notice dated 29.7.1997, the survey number was mentioned as S.No.558/3-A instead of 558/3-B and the extent of land was mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares. After seeing the notice, since the extent of land is mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares, the petitioner approached the Taluk Office, Hosur for clarification. It was not clarified and then, the petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Officer at Hosur, who informed that no sketch was available and therefore, the petitioner was directed to approach Krishnagiri Office. Then the petitioner gave petition under Right to Information Act on 10.1.2008 for which, it was replied that in their record, there was no sketch available in S.No.558 and they forwarded a letter to the Survey Office, Dharmapuri, and directed them to give the sketch to the petitioner, and there, the petitioner was informed that no sketch was available in their records. 9. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for patta and obtained the same. 9. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for patta and obtained the same. In the patta also, the petitioner found that the extent was mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares in S.No.558/3-B which is equal to 11.5 cents. In Dharmapuri Office, the petitioner was directed to approach the Central Survey Office, Chepauk, Chennai and then the petitioner approached the Survey Office at Chennai, and there, the petitioner got OFMD sketch, in which, in S.No.558/3-B, it was mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares and the total area in the petitioner's survey in S.No.558/3-B was mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares. This fact is known to the Land Acquisition Officer. But all the notifications issued under the Act mentioned the extent only as 0.04.0 hectares and even in the award proceedings, dated 20.12.1996, the extent mentioned in S.No.558/3-B as 0.04.0 hectares. But in the sketch available in the record, the extent is mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares. 10. After knowing fully well that the extent of 0.04.5 hectares, the officials did not take any steps to rectify the mistake done by them. On the contrary, the officials have suppressed the whole proceedings and finally, in Notice N.K.24590/84/I, dated 29.7.1997 issued by Tahsildar, Hosur asking the petitioner to withdraw the petitioner's award amount, which is deposited in his name in the Revenue Office, the area is mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares = 11.5 cents. After receiving the above said notice, the petitioner put his best efforts and finally, he got the OFMB sketch from the Office of the Assistant Director, Central Land Survey, Chepauk, Chennai, and in the OFMB sketch, the petitioner found that the area taken from the petitioner in S.No.558/3-B is 0.04.5 hectares. There was no land acquisition proceedings initiated for the excess land of 0.5 ares. The land acquisition proceedings are initiated only for 0.04.0 hectares and therefore, there is total violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a direction to put him back in possession of 0.5 ares in S.No.558-3/B. 11. The second respondent, namely the Sub-Collector, who is the Land Acquisition Officer, filed a counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for only that extent of land which belonged to him before acquisition of the land and the question to determine is as to what extent of land belongs to the petitioner. The second respondent, namely the Sub-Collector, who is the Land Acquisition Officer, filed a counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for only that extent of land which belonged to him before acquisition of the land and the question to determine is as to what extent of land belongs to the petitioner. According to the sale deed executed by the petitioner himself in Document Nu.2714 of 1973, the petitioner purchased an extent of 10 cents in S.No.558/3-B from his vendor Munisammy @ Balappa. Apart from this document, there is no other documentary evidence supporting his claim to the land. The petitioner owned only 10 cents of land in S.No.558/3-B and hence, he is entitled to compensation for that extent only. 12. As far as the Tahsildar's notice dated 29.7.1997 is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the mention of 0.04.5 hectares can only be a typographical mistake and such a mistake is possible as the petitioner has pointed out another mistake mentioning his land as S.No.558/3-A instead of 558/3-B. Therefore, the question of total extent of S.No.558/3-B as per OFMB or any other sketch is irrelevant, since the petitioner is concerned only with the land that belonged to him (i.e) 10 cents. Since the petitioner has not submitted any proof that he purchased an extent of 0.04.5 hectares his claim to restore 0.00.5 ares is imaginary and unsustainable on law and facts. By creating such frivolous allegations, the petitioner has already caused delay in execution of the work, wastage of public money, discomfort to the public using the bus stand and thereby, harmed the general public interest. The factual aspects cannot be gone into a Writ Petition and the petitioner, if at all is aggrieved, has to move only appropriate Civil Court. 13. It is further stated that the petitioner already received compensation of Rs.38,375/-dated 19.3.2002 itself. As per the records available, the petitioner has purchased only 10 cents and the same was acquired in accordance with law. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petitions before this Court praying for reasonable compensation as per market value of the land measuring 10 cents only and on this factual aspect, the petitioner is estopped from now claiming for possession of 0.00.5 areas. The second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 14. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petitions before this Court praying for reasonable compensation as per market value of the land measuring 10 cents only and on this factual aspect, the petitioner is estopped from now claiming for possession of 0.00.5 areas. The second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 14. The third respondent who is the Commissioner of Hosur Town Municipality, the requisitioning body, has filed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief he prayed for. According to the petitioner, he was the owner of 10 cents comprised in S.No.558/3-B and he was in possession and enjoyment of only 10 cents = 0.04.0 hectares. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in all the notifications issued under the Act, the extent is mentioned only at 0.04.0 hectares. In the award proceedings dated 20.1.1996 also, the extent is mentioned as 0.04.0 hectares in S.No.558/3-B. The Tahsildar, Hosur, in his notice Na.Ka.No.24590/84/1, dated 29.7.1997, issued to the petitioner, asked him to withdraw the award amount which is deposited in his name and the interest amount of Rs.89,448/- also was paid by cheque along with the letter of the Tahsildar, Hosur in Na.Ka.No.846/82/F1, dated 9.1.1997. All these facts are admitted by the petitioner. 15. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the acquired 10 cents in S.No.558/3-B from the petitioner was for the purpose of widening of entrance of Hosur Bus Stand and excess land to an extent of 0.5 ares was not encroached by the third respondent. The petitioner was the owner only of 10 cents in S.No.558/3-B and he has not established that the land to an extent of 0.5 ares are situated in the same survey number which he alleged that he was the owner. 16. The petitioner's father already filed suit in 1981 and the fact now remains that 10 cents were acquired even according to the petitioner and so, the remaining 1.5 cents alone are now in dispute and for the same, the petitioner can file suit. Nothing is violated and there was no arbitrariness while taking over possession of 10 cents from the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out prima-facie case and there is no balance of convenience in his favour in respect of the claim of 0.5 ares. He is also not entitled for injunction. 17. Nothing is violated and there was no arbitrariness while taking over possession of 10 cents from the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out prima-facie case and there is no balance of convenience in his favour in respect of the claim of 0.5 ares. He is also not entitled for injunction. 17. As regards the approach road, leading to the new bus stand, Hosur, which construction was completed by the third respondent-Municipality, it is stated that unless the said approach road is laid and the interim order is vacated, the third respondent find it difficult to widen the entrance of the bus stand, as the buses could not ingress freely into the bus stand. The public interest very much involved in the issue and they will be put to hardship and trouble and hence, it is a deserving case to vacate the interim order granted by this Court and dismiss the Writ Petition. 18. The main thrust of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the notice of the Tahsildar and as per the OFMB map/sketch, the extent is shown as 0.04.5 hectares and therefore, the excess lands be restored back to the petitioner, which is controverted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the third respondent, stating that as per the sale deed in Document No.2714 of 1973, the extent of land purchased by the petitioner was only 10 cents and beyond that, the petitioner cannot claim any compensation and there is a typographical error in mentioning the extent of land as 0.04.5 hectares in the Tahsildar notice, dated 29.7.1997 and it cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner to claim any excess land, unless documentary proof is shown to this Court. 19. Learned counsel for the third respondent in his submissions made a categorical statement that for public interest, the lands were acquired and if there is any delay in the matter, it will cause serious prejudice to the welfare of the public. 20. On the above background of pleadings and submissions made, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 21. Admittedly, it is seen that there was acquisition proceedings for public purpose of locating the bus stand in Hosur Town Panchayat. 20. On the above background of pleadings and submissions made, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 21. Admittedly, it is seen that there was acquisition proceedings for public purpose of locating the bus stand in Hosur Town Panchayat. Accordingly, the Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and thereafter, the procedures contemplated under the Act have been followed and the relevant notifications have been issued, objections were called for and the lands were acquired in accordance with law and award passed. In the meantime, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.9283 of 1998 to quash the land acquisition proceedings and the connected Writ Petition in W.P.No.11621 of 1998 was also disposed of along with W.P.No.9283 of 1998 by a common order, observing that there was a delay in payment of compensation and therefore, W.P.No.9283 of 1988 was dismissed, fixing approximately the compensation to the petitioner on account of the illegal occupation of his lands at Rs.25,000/- and this will be taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing award and fixing the compensation for the entire extent of 10 cents of lands and therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed, directing the first respondent therein to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the trespass committed by the Town Panchayat in occupying the land in survey No.558/3-B to an extent of four cents. It was also made clear that it was open to the first respondent therein to recover this amount from the Town Panchayat or the Municipality which has succeeded the Town Panchayat and this amount was directed to be paid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. Thereafter, another Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.21358 of 2000 and the same was disposed of, observing that the award has already been passed and the amount was lying in the Revenue Treasury and the petitioner is free to receive the award amount without prejudice to his claims under Section 18 of the Act and the respondents were directed to refer the matter before the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. 23. 23. In those circumstances, in the award notice dated 29.7.1997 issued by the Tahsildar, the extent of land was mentioned as 0.04.5 hectares in Survey No.558/3-B. On the strength of the above notice, the petitioner has taken all efforts to go before the authorities as well as before the Officer under the Right to Information Act and even the Revenue authorities and he ultimately approached the Survey Department at Chennai and then he sought for a sketch in OFMB sketch, dated 22.11.1985 and therefore, the petitioner claims that it is not 0.04.0 hectares (10 cents) and it is only 0.04.5 hectares (11.5 cents) and so, for the excess land, there was no acquisition proceedings and therefore, the petitioner claims that the excess land of 0.5 ares be restored back to the petitioner in S.No.558/3-B. 24. This claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the second respondent-Sub-Collector stating that the Tahsildar by mistake, in his notice dated 29.7.1997, mentioned the extent of land as 0.04.5 hectares and it is only typographical error and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said mistake and he also in turn mentioned the Survey Number as 558/3-A instead of 558/3-B and as per the sale deed, which is enclosed in the typed set of papers, dated 12.4.1973, the extent of land is only 10 cents and therefore, based on the documentary proof produced before the authorities, they have calculated the compensation and paid the same to the petitioner. 25. On a perusal of the entire records, it reveals that except the Tahsildar notice dated 29.7.1997 and the OFMB sketch obtained by the petitioner from the Survey Department, no other documents are produced before this Court to prove that the extent of land is 0.04.5 hectares. The evidentiary value is adduced by the petitioner himself and the sale deed dated 12.4.1973 vividly shows that the extent of lands is 10 cents purchased by the petitioner for a valid consideration and even in the earlier proceedings and the orders passed by this Court, it is clear that the extent of lands is only 10 cents and not 11.5 cents as claimed by the petitioner. If that is the case, the land acquisition proceedings, the award of compensation and other grievances are to be looked into based on the above documents which reveal that 10 cents are acquired for the public purpose. If that is the case, the land acquisition proceedings, the award of compensation and other grievances are to be looked into based on the above documents which reveal that 10 cents are acquired for the public purpose. It is seen that the petitioner also received the award amount. 26. That being the position, in respect of the grievance for the balance lands, if any, it is always open for the petitioner to go before the competent Civil Court and produce the relevant documents for his claim and adduce evidence and thereafter, if it is found that there is any excess land, it is open for the petitioner to claim the same before the competent Civil Court and not under the Writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, on a perusal of the entire facts, it would reveal that the acquisition proceedings are valid in law, and the same had been done after following the procedures contemplated under the Act and there was proper determination of the award amount and the award amount has also been received by the petitioner and it is not for this Court to entertain the Writ Petition for claim of restoration of the lands. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration and the same is dismissed. However, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court in respect of the claim of excess lands in question, by adducing oral and documentary evidence to prove his case and claim anything. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.