Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent's Notice dated 19.10.2010 under reference No.NaKa396/2006/A.1 and quash the same as illegal and invalid, consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to conduct enquiry under Section.15 sub section (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 pursuant to the Petitioners reply dated 26.10.2010 2. The subject matter of the writ petition is an acquisition of land under Tamil Nadu State Highways Act 34/ 2002. 3. In terms of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 (Tamil Nadu 34 of 2002) (herein after referred to as 'The Act'), before issuing a notification under Sections 15(1), Section 15 (2) of the Act mandates a notice to the owner or any other person having interest in the land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired and a public notice shall also be issued in the manner prescribed. In terms of Section 15 (3) of the Act, the Government after considering the cause, shall pass an order under sub Section 1 of Section 15 to acquire the land. 4. In this case, show cause notice dated 19.5.2010 in terms of Section 15 (2) has been served on the petitioner on 29.5.2010. In that notice, the following description has been given with regard to the land sought to be acquired. “TAMIL” 5. To this notice, the petitioner submitted an objection on 8.6.2010. The petitioner, in the objection, has stated that she is running a hotel in the said land and it is the only source of livelihood for herself and her family and that there are vast extent of poramboke land and other sites for acquisition. The objection also states about the title to the said property and the amount spent for improvement of the hotel for the purpose of compensation. However, no objection was made with regard to the area sought to be acquired. The objection also states about the title to the said property and the amount spent for improvement of the hotel for the purpose of compensation. However, no objection was made with regard to the area sought to be acquired. Then, after passing an order in terms of Section 15 (3) of the Act, a gazette notification has been issued under Section 15 (1) viz., G.O.Ms.No.277, Highways and Minor Ports (HW.2), dated 7.9.2010 and the relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:- "No.11(2)/HWMP/577/2010 – The Governor of Tamil Nadu having been satisfied that the lands specified in the Schedule below are required for the purpose of construction of Grade Separator at the intersection of GNT Road at KM 8/6 of Moolakadai at Madhavaram in WARD-C. Block-61 and it having already been decided that the entire amount of compensation to be awarded for the lands is to be paid out of the funds controlled and managed by the Chief Engineer (Metro) Highways Department, Alandur, Chennai.16 and after having consider the cause shown by the owner or other person having interest in the said lands, as the case may be, do hereby publish the following notice under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002). SCHEDULE Thiruvallur District, Madavaram Taluk, Madavaram Village. Government, dry, T.S.No. 80 (old Survey No.1092-4A2) belonging to Sochamaniammal bounded on the north by T.S.No. 10, east by T.S.No.9, South by T.S.No.7 and west by T.S.No.6-2 – 0112 square metres." Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated for determination of the amount to be paid for the land acquired and for which, the notice dated 19.10.2010 was issued in terms of Section 19(2) and 19(3) of the Act to work out the amount to be paid. In that, the details of the property has been mentioned as follows:- “TAMIL” This notice dated 19.10.2010 was received on 22.10.2010 and on 26.10.2010, the petitioner gave an objection. The English version of the said notice is as follows:- " District: Thiruvallur, Taluk: Madhavaram, Name of the Town:Madhavaram, Ward-C Block-61 6. On 26.10.2010, an objection was made as to the correct area that is to be acquired in view of the contradiction between the Tamil and English version of the notice dated 19.10.2010. Besides, the petitioner reiterated the earlier objection with regard to acquisition and value of property sought to be acquired. On 26.10.2010, an objection was made as to the correct area that is to be acquired in view of the contradiction between the Tamil and English version of the notice dated 19.10.2010. Besides, the petitioner reiterated the earlier objection with regard to acquisition and value of property sought to be acquired. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 19.10.2010 calling for enquiry under Section 19(2) and 19(3) for the purpose of determining the amount, stating that the description of the land is not correct between the English and Tamil version and also with regard to the description in the show cause notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the description of the land has not been properly mentioned in the proceedings initiated under Sections 19(2) and 19(3) and since the show cause notice under Section 15(2) is contrary to the 15(1) notification, the acquisition is bad on account of vagueness and for this purpose, he relied upon the decision in the case of Om Prakash Sharma and Others – Vs. - M.P.Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and others reported in (2005, 10, SCC 306). 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents refers to the counter affidavit filed and states that the area mentioned as sq.ft. and 0.0112 is a typographical error. She pointed out that in Column No.5 of the notice, it is specified that the extent of land to be acquired will be in square metres. The mistake that has been crept in is purely due to an error in typing. Insofar as the error in recording the extent in the notice under Section 15(2) is concerned, the Advocate General refers to the errata issued by the Highways Department, which reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 9. This is issued to be in consonance with the actual measurement of land that is to be acquired namely 112 sq. meters and not 0.0112 sq. meter as stated in the notice under Section 15(2) of the Act. This is issued to be in consonance with the actual measurement of land that is to be acquired namely 112 sq. meters and not 0.0112 sq. meter as stated in the notice under Section 15(2) of the Act. It is further stated that the land which is sought to be acquired falls in a place, which is highly congested due to commercial activities and heavy flow of commercial vehicles and in that place, the highways department is putting up a grade separator namely at Moolakkadai junction at kmS.8.06 of GNT NH 5 at the cost of 49.55 crores. According to the Advocate general, in most of the area, where lands have been acquired for the purpose of putting up highways grade separator, the work is in progress. The extent required in the present case is due to the proximity of the petitioner's land to the grade separator. He therefore justified the acquisition for public purpose. 10. Vast extent of land has been acquired for the above project and it is only in the present location, the mistake in measurement happened due to error in typing that too by oversight. There is no confusion or error insofar as the notification under Section 15(1) is concerned, where it has been correctly described as 112 sq.meters. The Advocate General relied upon the Apex Court decision in COMPETENT AUTHORITY – Vs. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 to state that in a project of this nature, the Court should overlook the minor mistake committed due to clerical error and allow the highways department to proceed with the work and the acquisition proceedings need not be interfered with. He submitted that petitioner's right to compensation may be fixed as in the case decided by the Apex Court in the above cited decision. He relied upon paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision, to state that the Court may direct the department to determine the market price of the land as on the date of taking possession of the property from the petitioner, which date can be fixed by this Court. 11. In the case of Om Prakash Sharma and Others – Vs. 11. In the case of Om Prakash Sharma and Others – Vs. - M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and others reported in (2005, 10, SCC 306), relied upon by the petitioner the issue was that the notification issued under Section 4( 1) of the land Acquisition Act 1894 was bereft of description of the land viz., survey No., names of the land owner etc. Therefore, the single Judge of the High Court quashed the 4(1) notification on account of vagueness and that was upheld by the Division Bench except with regard to grant of enhanced compensation. That was tested before the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, came to the conclusion that the single Judge had rightly held that the notification was bad on the ground of vagueness as it does not contain the details like survey Number, name of land owners etc. The facts of the above said decision may not apply to the facts of the present case as admittedly, in the present case, the entire details of the property sought to be acquired like ward Number, locality, survey Number, Name of the land owner has been given in detail in the notice under Section 15(2) and the notification issued under 15(1) . If there is no discrepancy of the property in the acquisition proceedings, like survey Number, or names of the land owner etc. then such an acquisition cannot be found fault with. The only mistake, which has crept in is that instead of 112 sq.meters, the extent is specified as 0.0112 sq.meters in the notice issued under Section 15(2) and 112 sq.ft. in the English version of the notice issued for determination of compensation under Section 19 of the Act. This error has been explained by the respondents as typographical error and the Court is inclined to accept the explanation given by the respondents in view of the fact that the notification under Section 15 (1) clearly gives all particulars of the land, which is sought to be acquired including the extent which is shown as 112 sq.meters. There is no vagueness as in Omprakash Shama's case. All other necessary details are clearly mentioned. 12. The Apex court in the decision Om Prakash Sharma and Others – Vs. - M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and others reported in (2005 , 10, SCC 306), relied upon the earlier decision of NarendrajitSingh – Vs. There is no vagueness as in Omprakash Shama's case. All other necessary details are clearly mentioned. 12. The Apex court in the decision Om Prakash Sharma and Others – Vs. - M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and others reported in (2005 , 10, SCC 306), relied upon the earlier decision of NarendrajitSingh – Vs. State of Utter Pradesh, reported in ( 1970 (1) SCC 125 ) where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that non-mentioning of the locality of the land vitiates the Section 4(1) notification. It also held that detailed particulars given in Section 6(1) declaration is of no consequence if Section 4(1) notification does not contain the detailed particulars of the land and held that such defects cannot be cured. In the present case, there is no confusion with regard to the locality, survey Number, ward Number, name of the owner of the property etc. and even the old survey Number of the property has been mentioned. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the respondents were conscious about the land, which is to be acquired. All details relating to the property except the measurement are the same in all proceedings. It is only with regard to the measurement, that the error had crept in. It is pertinent to point out that in the Section 15 (1) notification, the correct description of the land, which is sought to be acquired i.e. in sq.meters is given. It gives the full particulars. That notification issued under Section 15(1) is not under challenge before this Court. 13. In view of the above, the acquisition, for the purpose of putting up a grade separator under the State Highways Act , does not suffer from vagueness in description except to the extent that there is a mistake in the consequential proceedings under Section 19 of the Act. The error in the notice under Section 15(2) has been rectified by issuing an errata and therefore, the petitioner cannot plead prejudice. The petitioner has not chosen to participate in the award enquiry. If notification under Section 15(1) is not challenged, and it gives all particulars correctly, the petitioner can always claim compensation in terms of notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, which is the basis for grant of compensation. In the notice issued under Section 19 of the Act for determination of compensation, the discrepancy in the extent between the Tamil and English version. In the notice issued under Section 19 of the Act for determination of compensation, the discrepancy in the extent between the Tamil and English version. There is an error, which can be rectified. It has been pointed out by the petitioner on 26.10.2010 itself and the authorities are bound to take the said objection into consideration and grant compensation for the actual extent of 112 sq.meters, which is acquired under Section 15(1). 14. Since the Court has come to the conclusion that there is no error apparent in the acquisition proceedings and the notice under Section 15 (1) of the Act has not been challenged, the only point for consideration is the remedy to correct error committed in 15 (2) public notice and to what relief. The Hon'ble Apex Court in COMPETENT AUTHORITY – Vs. - BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND OTHERS reported in (2005, 13, SCC 477 has a solution to the present problem. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16, which is relevant reads as follows:- "(14). Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of a national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the landowners, that is, the writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action. 15.) Normally, compensation is determined as per the market price of land on the date of issuance of the notification regarding acquisition of land. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of the notification so that the landowners are adequately compensated. Reference may be made to: (a) UjjainVikas Pradhikaran v. RajKumar Johri (b) Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. (c) Haji Saeed Khan v. State of U.P. In that direction the next step is what should be the crucial date in the facts of the present case for determining the quantum of compensation. We feel that the relevant date in the present case ought to be the date when possession of the land was taken by the respondents from the writ petitioners. This date admittedly is 19-2-2003. We, therefore, direct that compensation payable to the writ petitioners be determined as on 19-2-2003, the date on which they were deprived of possession of their lands. We do not quash the impugned notification in order not to disturb what has already taken place by way of use of the acquired land for construction of the national highway. We direct that the compensation for the acquired land be determined as on 19-2-2003 expeditiously and within ten weeks from today and the amount of compensation so determined, be paid to the writ petitioners after adjusting the amount already paid by way of compensation within eight weeks thereafter. The claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the appropriate authority. The claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the appropriate authority. We express no opinion about other statutory rights, if any, available to the parties in this behalf and the parties will be free to exercise the same, if available. The compensation as determined by us under this order along with other benefits, which the respondents give to parties whose lands are acquired under the Act, should be given to the writ petitioners along with what has been directed by us in this judgment. 16.) Accordingly, appeals filed by the competent authority [arising out of SLP (C) No. 16820 of 2004] and the National Highways Authority of India [arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 17874-875 of 2004] are hereby dismissed while the appeal filed by Ridh Karan Rakecha and another [arising out of SLP (C) No. 18773 of 2004] is allowed in terms of the above judgment. There shall be no order as to costs." 15. The Apex Court in the above case considering the nature of the project i.e. National Highway, held that instead of quashing the notification, compensation should be determined on the basis of the market price of the land as on the date of taking possession of the land from the writ petitioner and by granting liberty to claim other benefits as per law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited decision referred to several decisions on the same lines to grant equitable remedy and the same can be granted to the petitioner in this case also without disturbing the acquisition proceedings. 16. In the present case, the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act has not been challenged and therefore, the question of setting aside the same does not arise. In view of the mistake pointed out by the petitioner and the error, which has been corrected by the respondents and taking cue from the decision of the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is yet to receive compensation can be given appropriate equitable remedy. The petitioner as undertaken by the learned counsel shall handover possession of the property on or before 30.9.2012. The petitioner as undertaken by the learned counsel shall handover possession of the property on or before 30.9.2012. The date 30.9.2012 for handing over possession (i.e.) will be reckoned as relevant date for the purpose of determining the market value/price of the property insofar as the petitioner is concerned and compensation determined accordingly. It is open to the petitioner to hand over possession even earlier to the said date. . The Court further directs the authority, who has already issued the notice under Sections 19(2) and (3), to determine the compensation for the acquired land on the basis of the market value as on 30.9.2012 instead of the date of issuance of notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. The respondents are agreeable to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of handing over the possession of the property in terms of the order as above. The petitioner will file an affidavit of undertaking before this Court on 2.8.2012 to the effect that the petitioner will hand over possession on or before 30.9.2012. The respondents shall not disturb the petitioner's possession till 30.9.2012. However, if the petitioner vacates the premises earlier to the said date, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the construction of the grade separator and other works without restraint. 17. This writ petition is ordered as above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Post the matter on 2.8.2012 for filing affidavit of undertaking.