Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the first respondent viz., Competent Authority and the Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur Districts and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to the first respondent to refer the matter to the civil forum for resolving the issue of compensation payable in respect of 0.20 acres in S.No.193/6B3A of Surrapet Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District as required under 3-H(3) & (4) of National Highways Act, 1956. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 30.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, in the applications for interim stay and injunction only notice was ordered. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land measuring 0.37 acres in Survey No.193/6B3A, belong to one Munuswamy Reddiar. By a sale deed dated 10.05.1954, the land was conveyed to one Ezhumalai Reddiar. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 23.04.1995 with the said Ezhumalai Reddiar agreeing to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.1,29,500/- and he had paid an advance of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner intended to plot out the property for prospective purchasers. Pursuant to the sale agreement, he was put in possession of the property to enable him to lay roads and to plot out the land. On 13.12.1997, he had paid a further sale advance of Rs.18,000/- and had obtained a separate receipt to that effect from Ezhumalai Reddiar. But however, Ezhumalai Reddiar died leaving behind the respondents to 6 as his legal heirs. The respondents 2 to 6 had assured the petitioner that they will abide by the sale agreement. They also received a further sale advance of Rs.83,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 20.02.1998 and 03.04.1998 and only a sum of Rs.8,500/- remained to be paid in full satisfaction of the sale agreement. The petitioner was also paying necessary taxes to the Revenue Department. 4. Since the Government had passed orders restricting the registration of unapproved plots, the petitioner could not proceed with the lay out and he could not arrange for sale of the plots and sale transaction got further delayed. During the year 2002, he came to know that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of laying of Chennai Bye-Pass connecting NH-4 and NH-5. Respondents 2 to 6 did not object to the said acquisition. During the year 2002, he came to know that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of laying of Chennai Bye-Pass connecting NH-4 and NH-5. Respondents 2 to 6 did not object to the said acquisition. The petitioner came to know that about 0.20 acres out of the total property was being acquired by the Highways and after giving the said plot to the Highways the contesting respondents were attempting to sell the land to third parties. The respondents are bound to register the remaining land of 0.17 acres in his favour. He came to know that notification for the proposed acquisition had been published in the newspapers. Immediately, the petitioner sent letters to the first respondent placing the true state of affairs. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2007 to the first respondent that he is entitled to receive the entire compensation. 5. In spite of his objections, the first respondent National Highways was siding with the contesting respondents to deprive him the compensation amount for the acquired lands. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16389 of 2007 seeking for similar relief. This Court by an order dated 02.05.2007 directed the first respondent to pass orders on the representations made by the petitioner and proceedings initiated were directed to be kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed Contempt Petition No.734 of 2007 for allegedly disobeying the orders passed by this Court. He had also sent legal notice on 27.02.2008 and filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.04.2008. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that the land in question had not been transferred in the name of the petitioner. The sale agreement produced by the petitioner is an unregistered document and it is not transferred in the name of the petitioner so far. 6. The only question to be decided is as to whom the compensation amount should be entrusted. Since the petitioner is not the lawful owner of the land and the sale agreement is not a registered agreement, the claim of the ownership made by the petitioner after 13 years cannot be acceptable. 7. On notice, the respondents produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the first respondent dated 22.02.2007 and in respect of the compensation belonging to the land of the contesting respondents, the amount has been ascertained. 8. 7. On notice, the respondents produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the first respondent dated 22.02.2007 and in respect of the compensation belonging to the land of the contesting respondents, the amount has been ascertained. 8. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute should be referred in terms of Section 3-H(3) and (4) of the National Highways Act cannot be countenanced by this Court. Under Section 3-H(3) of the Act, it is clearly stated if several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited, the competent authority should determine the persons who in his opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. Under Section 3-H(4), it is stated that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority should refer the dispute to the decision of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. 9. In the present case, the authority has rightly held that the petitioner's claim that he is the owner of the land cannot be acceptable since the petitioner is only having an unregistered sale agreement and there is no mutation of land records in his favour. In the absence of any legal right, the petitioner cannot claim any amount directly from the National Highways. If the petitioner thinks that the sale agreement cannot be specifically enforced in the light of the acquisition, he should sue the contesting respondents for return of the amount. Infact, the National Highways has taken only 0.20 acres and the balance 0.17 acres is still available. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had filed a suit for specific performance against the contesting respondents for that portion of the land. 10. In the light of the above, the petitioner has to sue the contesting respondents for return of the amount allegedly paid towards sale consideration and certainly, he cannot demand any reference in terms of Section 3-H(3) & (4) of the Act. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.