Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed by 23 petitioners seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices, dated 02.06.2014, issued by the second respondent, under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') in Form-E. 2. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the residents of GST Road and Big Car Street in Tirupparankundram, Madurai and their buildings are situated 30 meters away from the Railway level crossing gate No.371. In Paragraph Nos.1 to 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have given the details regarding their respective properties, survey numbers and their entitlement. However these issues are not required to be adjudicated in this writ petition. 4. It is further submitted that on 21.03.2012, the petitioners came to know from the Tamil Daily namely “Dinamani” that the fourth respondent is intending to construct a railway over-bridge over the railway level crossing gate No.371 and effective steps are being taken by the second respondent to acquire the petitioners' buildings to entrust the same to the respondents 4 and 5. It is further submitted that before the notice was issued in the newspaper, no individual notice was issued to the petitioners to enable them to appear in person and file objections and without serving any notice, the respondents marked certain extent of the petitioners' properties with an intention to demolish the same to that extent. 5. Further, it is submitted that in the said notice published by the third respondent, it was found that a decision was taken on 24.02.2012, but notice was published on 21.03.2012, providing a very short time to file objection by 29.03.2012 and the notice was served on the petitioners on 28.03.2012 calling upon them to appear before the second respondent on the next day, failing which threatened to demolish their buildings without granting further time. 6. It is further submitted that the respondents 4 and 5 failed to study the cause and effect, after the construction of the proposed railway over bridge. The vehicles moving towards Nilaiyur Village and other Villages, crossing the Gate No.371 can turn in the right side to reach their destination. 6. It is further submitted that the respondents 4 and 5 failed to study the cause and effect, after the construction of the proposed railway over bridge. The vehicles moving towards Nilaiyur Village and other Villages, crossing the Gate No.371 can turn in the right side to reach their destination. The road junction for Nilaiyur is situated 100 meters away from the Railway Gate No.371 and the heavy load vehicles, ambulance and other vehicles can reach the National Highway Road easily through the said junction and the proposed construction of over-bridge would cause much hindrance and hardship to the public. 7. Further, it is submitted that setting out all the above mentioned facts, the petitioners sent a representation, on 27.03.2012, to cancel the said notice and since no action was taken, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.4728 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court, by Order dated 24.07.2012, with a direction to the appropriate authority, who is the competent authority, to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame. In the meantime, the second respondent issued the impugned notices, dated 02.06.2014 and challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Mr. W.Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notices, dated 02.06.2014, are liable to be set aside on the ground that they have been issued in absolute derogation of the orders and directions issued in W.P.(MD) No.4728 of 2012, dated 24.07.2012. It is further submitted that the second respondent ought to have called upon the petitioners before publishing the notice as contemplated under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act. 9. It is further submitted that without making any paper publication, the second respondent published the notification in the Gazette, which is not in consonance with Section 15(2) of the Act. Further, the notice does not disclose the purpose for which the petitioners' lands are to be acquired and therefore it amounts to grabbing the petitioners' lands illegally. Further, it is submitted that the impugned action of the second respondent is contrary to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Rules'). Further, the notice does not disclose the purpose for which the petitioners' lands are to be acquired and therefore it amounts to grabbing the petitioners' lands illegally. Further, it is submitted that the impugned action of the second respondent is contrary to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Rules'). Further, it is submitted that no order was passed by the second respondent as contemplated under Section 15(3) of the Act. 10. It is further submitted that the respondents ought to have followed the provisions of Sections 7 and 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and no steps have been taken to rehabilitate the petitioners under the Central Act. Further, it is submitted that the impugned notices are bad in law for not rightly considering the scope of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, since as per the counter affidavit only a paltry sum of compensation has been arrived at as interim compensation and even the said amount has not been disbursed by the respondents to the petitioners and as on date the value of the property in that area runs to several crores and the proposal given by the respondents is very low and the petitioners' rights have been seriously affected. 11. Further, it is submitted that the notification is bad in law, since the Government has authorized only the Collector of the District concerned to exercise the power under Section 15(2) of the Act and the notification has been issued by the District Revenue Officer, who is not the delegated authority and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated. 12. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the entire road over bridge work has already been completed and ready to be opened. Further, it is stated that the service road has been formed on both sides with a width of 5.50 meters and the dispute is only for a length of about 105.3 meters on the southern side of the bridge and less than 20 meters on the northern side and the petitioners' properties have not been fully acquired, but only a portion of the properties ranging from 1.80 meters to 2.40 meters alone is to be acquired for the purpose of forming service road with a width of 5.50 meters. It is further submitted that all the petitioners' properties situated at southern side have entrance at Periyaratha Veethi, which is the main road and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners since adequate compensation will be given and considering the public interest involved, the respondents should be permitted to proceed with the acquisition proceedings. 13. As regards the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is contended that the notification has been published under Section 15(2) of the Act in the tamil daily “Dinamani”, on 21.03.2012 and copy of such notice was also filed in the typed set of papers and apart from that the notice has been published in the manner contemplated under the Rules and certificates in this regard have been issued by the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union, Tirupparankundram, Village Administrative Officer, Tirupparankundram, Divisional Engineer (R) Nabard and Rural Roads, Madurai and Sub-Registrar, Tirupparankundram. Therefore, it is submitted that it is incorrect to state that the notification was not published as contemplated under the statue. 14. Further, it is submitted that the Government has delegated the power to the District Revenue Officers vide G.O.Ms.No.78, Highways and Minor Ports (HF1) Department, dated 22.06.2011 and therefore the impugned proceedings is not beyond the power of the District Revenue Officer and the same is valid. Further, it is submitted that no orders are required to be passed under Section 15(1) of the Act and orders are required to be passed only under Section 15(3) of the Act and the contention in this regard is incorrect. 15. Further, it is submitted that no orders are required to be passed under Section 15(1) of the Act and orders are required to be passed only under Section 15(3) of the Act and the contention in this regard is incorrect. 15. Further, it is submitted that the Government vide G.O.(D) No.281, Highways and Minor Ports (HS1) Department, dated 31.12.2013, has taken note of the proposal given by the District Collector, Madurai, in his letters dated 08.06.2013, 25.10.2013 and 28.11.2013 and ordered that the notice under sub section (1) of Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34/2002, submitted by the District Collector, Madurai in his letters read above for acquisition of Ryoth dry lands and Ryoth Manai measuring to an extent of 0.0500.00 sq.mts in Survey Nos.181/1B1 etc., in the Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village of Madurai District for the Construction of Road Over Bridge in lieu of existing Level Crossing No.371 at Railway km.501/400-500 at Thirupparankundram between Madurai Junction and Thirupparankundram Railway Station is approved and ordered to be published in the next issue of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. 16. Further, it is submitted that the impugned notices are statutory formats and the petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act on and after the publication of the notice under Section 15(1) in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the land has been vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances and in the absence of any challenge to the notification under Section 15(1), the challenge to the impugned notices, which are the notices under Section 16(2) is not maintainable in law. 17. Further, it is submitted that the authorities have considered all the objections, afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, after considering all the objections and after conducting spot inspections, have taken action to acquire the lands. Further, by referring to the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 02.07.2014 in Na.Ka.No.83839/2011/B6, it is submitted that an interim compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- has been deposited and further recommendation has been made to provide total interim compensation of Rs.1,66,27,933/-and the proposal is now pending with the Government and in terms of Section 19 of the Act the determination has to be done by the Government. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the District Collector, dated 28.08.2014. 18. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the District Collector, dated 28.08.2014. 18. Further, it is submitted that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 have no application to the present proceedings, which were initiated under the old Act and the new Act came into force only on 01.01.2014. With the above submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the writ petition so that the project could be completed, which would subserve the interest of the general public. 19. I have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised grounds challenging the acquisition proceedings as being vitiated for non-compliance of the statutory provisions; suffering from vice of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the District Revenue Officer; violation of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition as the petitioners' representation was not considered by the competent authority; that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the proposal of the interim compensation arrived at by the District Collector is grossly inadequate and not a fair compensation and no steps have been taken to rehabilitate the petitioners in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was further argued that the notification issued under Section 15(2) of the Act is bad in law on account of the failure to follow the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules in the manner of publication of the notice. 21. Before this Court ventures to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners, it has to be pointed out that the petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings namely the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act. The impugned proceedings are the notices issued under Section 16(2) of the Act directing the petitioners to surrender and deliver possession of the extent of the property required for the public purpose. These notices, under Section 16(2) of the Act, have been issued after the land vested in the Government free from all encumbrances under Section 16(1) of the Act. The impugned proceedings are the notices issued under Section 16(2) of the Act directing the petitioners to surrender and deliver possession of the extent of the property required for the public purpose. These notices, under Section 16(2) of the Act, have been issued after the land vested in the Government free from all encumbrances under Section 16(1) of the Act. Therefore, the challenge to the notices under Section 16(2) raising contention stating that the acquisition is bad in law for alleged procedural irregularities has to necessarily fail. Nevertheless, this Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties elaborately and documents have been placed before this Court. 22. It has to be pointed out that the entire road over bridge across the Railway level crossing gate No.371 in Thirupparankundram has been fully completed. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. 23. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners attempted to interfere with the respondents in erecting the retaining wall, which was well within the highways boundary line. This Court, while passing an interim order, specifically directed that the petitioners cannot object to the construction of the retaining work. The disputed portion in this writ petition falls within the area earmarked for the formation of the service road, which has been formed on either side of the road over bridge. The service road is to a width of 5.50 meters. It has been established before this Court by the respondents that the entire road has been fully formed except the disputed portion where the petitioners' properties are situated. It has to be pointed out that the entire land and buildings of the petitioners are not affected by the acquisition, but only a portion to an extent of 1.80 to 4.50 meters. It is the case of the respondents that the entrance of the petitioners' buildings are on the other side of the building facing the Periyaratha Veethi, which is the main road in that area. However, that aspect need not be gone into at this stage. 24. The disputed portion is a narrow strip on the northern and southern side of the road over bridge. The extent on the northern side, which is to be acquired appears to be very meagre and ranges from 01.00 meter to 4.5 meters, which being the frontage of the properties of the petitioners. 24. The disputed portion is a narrow strip on the northern and southern side of the road over bridge. The extent on the northern side, which is to be acquired appears to be very meagre and ranges from 01.00 meter to 4.5 meters, which being the frontage of the properties of the petitioners. Apart from that, portion of the market, police station, bus stand and other properties to the required extent have already been taken over and road has been formed. On the southern side the extent required is 1.80 meters to 4.50 meters and it is also the frontage of those properties. Admittedly, the project is in public interest and it is a very busy area and decision was taken to construct a road over-bridge to avoid traffic congestion and for public welfare. While constructing road over bridge, there is necessity to form service road and this has already been formed for the entire length except the small portion of 500 sq. meters, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. 25. Contention was raised stating that the District Revenue Officer has published notification under Section 15(2) of the Act and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 29.09.2003, only the Collector of the concerned District alone has been authorized to exercise powers vested with the Government under Section 15(2). It is seen that subsequently the Government issued another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.78, Highways and Minor Ports (HF1) Department, dated 22.06.2011, by exercising powers under Section 66(1) of the Act in supersession of the notification, dated 15.10.2003, which is the Gazette notification notifying the G.O.Ms.No.206 and the Government of Tamil Nadu authorized the District Revenue Officer of the District concerned to exercise the power of the Government vested under Section 15(2) of the Act. In the light of such delegation, the contention advanced by the petitioners has to necessarily fail. 26. It is submitted that the publication of the notification has not been made in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules. The learned Additional Advocate General produced the copy of the paper publication and Gazette notification and the other certificates issued by the authorities such as the Commissioner of Panchayat, Village Administrative Officer, Sub-Registrar etc., which establishes that the notification has been published in accordance with the provisions of Rules and Act. The learned Additional Advocate General produced the copy of the paper publication and Gazette notification and the other certificates issued by the authorities such as the Commissioner of Panchayat, Village Administrative Officer, Sub-Registrar etc., which establishes that the notification has been published in accordance with the provisions of Rules and Act. Therefore, the challenge to the acquisition on that ground also should fail. 27. The contention raised stating that the petitioners are entitled for protection under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does not merit acceptance in the light of the undisputed facts that the present acquisition was initiated much earlier under the provisions of the Act and there is no challenge by the petitioners to the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act and therefore the question of applying the new Act, which came into force on 01.01.2014, does not arise. 28. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the challenge in this writ petition is to a statutory notices in Form-E, issued under Section 16(2) of the Act. The land having vested in the Government free from all encumbrances under Section 16(1), the Government is entitled to invoke Section 16(2) of the Act and the petitioners having not challenged the acquisition proceedings cannot maintain a writ petition as against the notices issued under Sections 16(2) of the Act. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order and directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.4728 of 2012, dated 24.07.2012, has not been complied with as the competent authority has not decided the matter. This contention was advanced by referring G.O.Ms.No.206, stating that the Collector of the District concerned is the delegated authority to exercise such power. The said contention was held to be not tenable in the light of the subsequent notification issued on 22.06.2011 in supersession of the earlier notification. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer was competent to conduct the proceedings. 30. This contention was advanced by referring G.O.Ms.No.206, stating that the Collector of the District concerned is the delegated authority to exercise such power. The said contention was held to be not tenable in the light of the subsequent notification issued on 22.06.2011 in supersession of the earlier notification. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer was competent to conduct the proceedings. 30. From the documents placed by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is seen that the District Revenue Officer has conducted an enquiry in which the petitioners/land owners have participated and they have given their oral statements before the Officer, which has been signed by sixteen persons, which includes the petitioners 1 to 3, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 19, apart from that the other persons namely A.Arumugam, P.Ramamoorthi, E.Subbaraj, R.Arunkumar, M.Senthil Aandavan, N.Kamaraj, V.Periasamy and M.Guruvayurappan, have also signed the statement. This statement has been recorded by the District Revenue Officer on 14.09.2012. 31. The Divisional Engineer, Rural Roads, Madurai, has submitted his report to the District Revenue Officer, on 15.09.2012, regarding the objections raised by the petitioners and others. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer has conducted a spot inspection of the entire area, on 04.10.2012 and recorded his findings vide inspection report. Thereafter, based on all these records, an order has been passed by the District Revenue Officer, on 16.11.2012, rejecting the objections. The report is an elaborate nine page report dealing with each one of the objections. This report was furnished to the petitioners and others, who filed their objections before the District Revenue Officer in the personal hearing conducted. The petitioners have not questioned the said report or any portion of the same. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer submitted the same to the District Collector, who in turn has submitted a report to the Government on 08.06.2013, wherein interim compensation has also been computed. 32. The petitioners have not questioned the said report or any portion of the same. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer submitted the same to the District Collector, who in turn has submitted a report to the Government on 08.06.2013, wherein interim compensation has also been computed. 32. In the light of the above facts, the contentions of the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings were conducted in derogation of the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted as it has been established by records that the affected persons were given opportunity and several of them availed opportunity and an order has also been passed after considering the petitioners' statement, the remarks given by the Highways Department, the findings of the District Revenue Officer during spot inspection and the said order of rejection was also communicated to the petitioners and other pattadars and the same has not been questioned in the manner known to law. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners has to necessarily to fail. 33. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69 , considered the scope of judicial review in the matters pertaining to Infrastructure Laws for developing roads and highways and to what extent Courts could exercise jurisdiction while deciding the correctness of the land acquisition proceedings and observed as follows: “28....the projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise isn the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.....” 34. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.....” 34. Though the above decision was rendered while considering the land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956, yet the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court as regards the scope of judicial review could very well be applied to the case on hand. Furthermore, the impugned proceedings are not found an excessive contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. Hence there is no scope for interference. 35. It is to be noted that the acquisition proceedings, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is only 500 sq.meters, which is not disputed by the petitioners and the service road is required to be formed to a width of 5.50 sq.meters to benefit the general public and the petitioners are not divested of the entire property only a portion of the property for which the petitioners are bound to be compensated and in fact interim compensation arrived at by the District Collector is lying in deposit and enhanced interim compensation has been recommended and pending approval with the Government. In the light of the above discussions, the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. 36. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The respondents are directed to disburse the proportionate interim compensation to the petitioners and other persons, who are affected by the present acquisition proceedings from and out of the amount already deposited namely Rs.80,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. This amount shall be received by the petitioners without prejudice to their rights to claim higher compensation in accordance with law. In the light of the above, the respondents are permitted to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings so as to complete the formation of the service road. The interim order, dated 05.08.2014, stands vacated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.