Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased an old first floor flat, measuring about 860 sq.ft., bearing door No.3/200, plot No.6, Mount–Medavakkam Road, Moovarasampet, Chennai, on 5.3.2007. The petitioner had purchased the said flat from its previous owner, namely, F.Shazia Hasmath, by way of a registered document, bearing document No.754 of 2007, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Alandur. 3. It has been further stated that the vendor of the property had purchased an undivided share of the land, from its previous owner, namely, M/s.Balussery Benefits Chit Fund (P) Ltd. M/s.Balussery Benefits Chit Fund (P) Ltd., had purchased the land, from one Alamelu, under document No.2150 of 1986. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been paying the property tax and other statutory dues, to the appropriate authorities. While so, the petitioner and the other owners of the flats in the building, known as ‘Modern Apartments’, had learnt from the notices published in the newspapers, dated 22.9.2009, and from the publication made in the locality, that the property in question was sought to be acquired, by the Highways Department, for the expansion of the Road. Therefore, the petitioner and the others had made representations to the respondents, by hand delivery, on 3.10.2009, stating that they were the present co-owners of the landed property and that the land in which the flats were situated may be exempted from the proposed land acquisition proceedings. However, the respondents had chosen to ignore the representations made on behalf of the petitioner and the other flat owners and had issued a notice to the erstwhile owner Alamelu, in the month of July, 2010, demanding the surrender of the land and the delivery of the possession of the property in question. 5. It had been further stated that the petitioner and the others had made a further representation, dated 27.7.2010, stating that they are the present owners of the property in question and that they may be permitted to surrender an alternate property, as per the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, dated 31.10.2007, and in the Government Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 10.8.1998. However, the second respondent had ignored the said representation, dated 27.7.2010 and had issued another notice, under Clauses 5 and 7 of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, to the previous owner of its property, namely, Alamelu. A further representation, dated 1.3.2011, had been submitted to the respondents. However, the respondents had not considered the same in favour of the owners of the flats in question. Therefore, the petitioner had issued a legal notice to the respondents, on 20.7.2011, stating that the acquisition proceedings initiated without proper notice having been issued to the owners of the property in question would be void, ab initio and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings may be dropped. Even though the respondents had received the said notice, on 22.7.2011, no communication had been sent to the petitioner thereafter. However, an award, dated 30.12.2011, had been passed, illegally, without following the principles of natural justice and the procedures established by law. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the Government had given the administrative sanction for the widening and strengthening of Mount-Madipakkam Road, in the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.229, Highways (HW1) Department, dated 14.11.2005. 7. It has been further stated that, pursuant to the sanction given by the Government, the Divisional Engineer (Planning), Highways Department, Division I, had sent the necessary requisition for the acquisition of about 3982 sq.mts. of lands, in T.S.No.1/10, etc. in Moovarasampattu town, Alandur Taluk, for the purpose of widening and the strengthening of Mount-Madipakkam Road, as a four lane carriageway. The Government, in its order No.224, Highways (HW-2) Department, dated 5.9.2007 and in the Government Letter No.21471/HW2/2007-1 Highways Department, dated 7.1.2008, had delegated its powers to the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III, Poonamallee, to issue a notice, under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project – III and C.M.D.P. Project, in Chennai, Tiruvallur and Kancheepuram Districts. On receipt of the requisition from the Highways Department, the necessary survey had been made and it had been decided to acquire an extent of 3982 sq.mts. of dry and wet lands, in Moovarasampattu Town, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 8. On receipt of the requisition from the Highways Department, the necessary survey had been made and it had been decided to acquire an extent of 3982 sq.mts. of dry and wet lands, in Moovarasampattu Town, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 8. It had been further stated that the necessary notification, under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been published in the Tamil Newspaper ‘Dhinakaran’, on 22.9.2009 and in the English newspaper, namely, the New Indian Express, on 22.9.2009. Thereafter, the necessary publications had been made at the various places, in the locality concerned, on 23.9.2009, inviting the land owners and other interested persons to submit their objections, if any. 9. It has been further stated that the notices had been issued to the land owners and to the other interested persons, under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, inviting objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition of land in question. The enquiry had been fixed, on 21.10.2009. 14 persons had attended the enquiry and 28 objections had been received. The objections, which had been received, had been sent to the requisitioning body, on 9.11.2009. The objections had been overruled by the requisitioning body, vide Lr.No.1362/2009 A1/CMDP, dated 25.2.2010. 10. It had been further stated that necessary proposals for the acquisition of the land, under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been sent to the Government, for approval. The Government, in its order, in G.O.No.171, Highways and Minor Ports (HW-2), Department, dated 11.5.2010, had approved the notification, under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and had also published the same in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 2.6.2010. After the publication of the Government order, the value of the land had been fixed, tentatively, and an enquiry, under Sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been conducted, on 27.7.2010. 14 persons had appeared in the enquiry and a tentative value had been fixed for the land in question and it had been intimated to the land owners. 14 persons had appeared in the enquiry and a tentative value had been fixed for the land in question and it had been intimated to the land owners. They had filed their objections, in respect of the fixation of the value of the land and the objections had been conveyed to the Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, and the necessary permission, under Section 19(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been obtained, in Lr.No.M1/25060/2010, dated 1.10.2010, and the land value, under Section 19(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been approved by the Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, in Lr.No.M1/411/2011, dated 14.3.2011. 11. It had been further stated that, following the fixation of the land value, an award enquiry, under Sections 19(5) and 19(7) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been conducted, on 1.3.2011. 19 persons had attended the enquiry, including the petitioner, and they had produced the relevant documents to prove their ownership. After perusing the documents produced by the land owners, an award had been passed, on 30.12.2011. The land owners concerned had received the compensation amount, by way of cheques, issued in their favour. However, as the petitioner had refused to receive the award amount, it had been deposited in the Treasury. 12. It had been further stated that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated for the public purpose of easing the traffic congestion in the locality concerned, keeping in mind the future demand. The acquisition proceedings had been carried out, based on the Town Survey Register, in which T.S.No.5/1E2B is in the name of the land owner, namely, Alamelu. Therefore, all the notifications had been published in her name. However, the necessary enquiry notices, under Sections 15(2), 19(2), 16(2) and 19(5) and 19(7) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, had been served on the petitioner. Further, the representation submitted by the petitioner had been taken into consideration, by the respondents and it had been overruled, as the acquisition was for a public purpose. As such, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the notification issued, by the respondents, for the acquisition of the land in question, is bad in law. As such, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the notification issued, by the respondents, for the acquisition of the land in question, is bad in law. The necessary notices had not been issued to the present owners, or to the persons in possession of the property in question. The respondents had failed to consider the representation made by the actual owners of the said properties and the legal notice issued to the respondents, on behalf of the petitioner. Further, the respondents had not followed the procedures established by law, for acquiring the lands, for the purpose of widening and for strengthening of Mount-Madipakkam Road. 14. He had relied on the decision of this Court, made in PON. ELANGOVAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( 2009 (5) CTC 661 ), in support of his contentions that the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be valid, if the necessary notices had not been issued to the real owners of the lands in question. 15. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, had submitted that all the relevant procedures prescribed by law had been followed, while acquiring the lands in question, for the widening and for the strengthening of Mount-Madipakkam Road. The necessary notices had been issued in the name of one, Alamelu, whose name was found in the Town Survey Register concerned. Further, necessary notices had been published in the relevant newspapers and in the locality concerned, and the representation submitted by the petitioner and the other owners of the lands had been considered before an award had been passed. The petitioner had also participated in the enquiry held by the respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said that the procedures established by law had not been followed, while acquiring the lands in question. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits. 17. 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits. 17. The original records relating to the acquisition proceedings had been placed before this Court. On a perusal of the said records, it is clear that the necessary procedures had been followed, while acquiring the lands in question. 18. It is also noted that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry, under Section 19 (5) and 19(7) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, held on 1.3.2011. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that the necessary procedures had not been followed, while acquiring the land, in T.S.No.5/1E2B, said to be belonging to the petitioner. 19. The necessary paper publication had been issued and the publication of the notices in the locality had also been made before the land in question had been acquired. It is also noted that the representation submitted by the petitioner had been considered by the authorities concerned. Even though the objections raised by the petitioner had been overruled, it cannot be said that the proper procedures had not been followed, by the respondents, while acquiring the land in question. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it fit to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.