Judgment :- The petitioner was in possession of 7 shops having an extent of 1261 sq.ft. situated at No.202,N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai for more than 30 years, according to him. 2. The lands and the superstructure (shops) were acquired by the respondents 2 and 3 under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001, ("the Act" for the short), for the purpose of construction of an overbridge. 3. The fourth respondent is the owner of the land on which the shops were built up. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to hold an enquiry into the illegal acquisition of the entire property in his possession at No.202, NSK Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai 26 . 5. The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The fourth respondent has stated that the writ petitioner has suppressed the suit filed in O.S.No.7536 of 1998 by the petitioner against the erstwhile vendor who sold the property to the fourth respondent. In the said suit, the petitioner pleaded that he was a lawful tenant to the vendor of the fourth respondent and he sought for a permanent injunction restraining the vendor from evicting him without following due process of law. The suit was also decreed on 13.10.2000. The fourth respondent purchased the concerned property from his vendor in 2008. The aforesaid filing of suit has been suppressed in this writ petition. While the petitioner claimed in the suit that he is a lawful tenant, the petitioner has sought to perfect the title by way of adverse possession by saying that he has been in occupation of those 7 shops without payment of any rent. It is submitted that the fourth respondent has no objection for acquisition of the land and the shops thereon for the purpose of construction of overbridge. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent have made their submissions based on instructions. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has no objection for the acquisition of 10.04 sq. mtr. of land and the building thereon for the purpose of construction of overbridge. According to him, under the guise of this acquisition, the fourth respondent has sought to evict the petitioner from the place. 9. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has no objection for the acquisition of 10.04 sq. mtr. of land and the building thereon for the purpose of construction of overbridge. According to him, under the guise of this acquisition, the fourth respondent has sought to evict the petitioner from the place. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has submitted that the shops are abutting the road and the petitioner was in occupation of those seven shops and the vacant portion behind the shops was not in occupation of the petitioner and on demolition of those shops for the purpose of construction of the overbridge, the petitioner has to vacate the shops. The petitioner could not claim the vacant land that was not in his possession. 10. The learned counsels for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have submitted that a notice dated 31.12.2010 was issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act proposing to acquire 10.04 sq. mtr. of land in S.No. 6/2 at N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai for the purpose of construction of overbridge. It is stated that two overbridges are to be constructed in that place , one for Motor Transport and the other for the Metro Rail. It is further submitted that a notification under Section 15(1) dated 29.11.2011 was issued acquiring the aforesaid land pursuant to the notice issued under Section 15(2). Thereafter, the land and the buildings thereon vested with the Government as per Section 16(1) of the Act. Notice dated 30.3.2012 under Section 16(2) was issued both to the fourth respondent as well as to the petitioner to hand over possession of the land in question. Thereafter, possession was taken and the construction of overbridge is going on. It is submitted that the petitioner has not chosen to question the notice issued under Section 15(2) or the Notification issued under Section 15(1) or the notice issued under Section 16(2). The writ petition of this nature is not maintainable. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to hold an enquiry into the illegal acquisition of the entire property in possession of the petitioner at No.202, NSK Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai 26 . 13. The writ petition of this nature is not maintainable. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to hold an enquiry into the illegal acquisition of the entire property in possession of the petitioner at No.202, NSK Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai 26 . 13. All the respondents have stated that the acquisition is only to an extent of 10.04 sq.mtr. If the petitioner still has a grievance that he was evicted from his portion, while he has been in occupation of an area that does not come under 10.04 sq.mtr, his remedy is by way of approaching the competent civil court. Admittedly, a disputed question of fact has arisen. While the petitioner has stated that he was sought to be evicted from a portion that did not come under acquisition, on the other hand, the fourth respondent has stated that the petitioner was in occupation of only the portion that was acquired under the Act. 14. Admittedly, the acquisition is only for 10.04 sq. mtr. Therefore, if the petitioner wants to establish his right that he was in occupation of an area that is not covered under the acquisition, he shall go before the competent forum to establish the disputed question of fact. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 , the petitioner has not chosen to question the notice issued under Section 15 (2) or the notification issued under Section 15(1) or the notice issued under Section 16(2) of the Act. Already, acquisition has taken place and the construction of overbridge is going on. Hence, the petitioner cannot ask for the direction as sought for in this writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioner has also not pleaded about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.7536 of 1998, wherein he contended that he was a lawful tenant. On the other hand, he claims in this writ petition, as if he has been in occupation without payment of rent. Hence, the petitioner has suppressed a vital information and therefore, he is not entitled to claim the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.