JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made in Ka.No.Valakku/2021/2 dated 12/07/2021 on the file of 4th respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to live with the petitioner's family in his land bearing Survey No.247 /1A Macheri Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District to secure the ends of justice.) Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ. 1. The writ petition was heard at length on 08.08.2022 and a detailed order was passed. Today, we are deciding the writ petition in the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 12.07.2021 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same treating it to be illegal and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to remain in peaceful possession of the property in Survey No.247/1Aof Macheri Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession of the property for the last many decades and thus, has right to possess the property which is subjected to the order dated 12.07.2021. 3. Referring to the facts of the case, it is stated that the petitioner has constructed house sites in the land in S.No.247/1A measuring about 6 cents. The fourth respondent has caused notice to remove the encroachment ignoring that the land in question is Natham poromboke and 15 families have put up construction and living there and there exists even a temple. A suit was filed by the petitioner's father where the written statement filed by the District Collector would show that the petitioner and his family are in possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.247/1 for decades and therefore, Section 28 (2) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act of 2001') would not be applicable. The dispossession was to be contested by him in reference to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013'), as he was in possession of the property and even made an application for grant of patta. Thus, initiation of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act was illegal treating him to be an encroacher. Thus, initiation of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act was illegal treating him to be an encroacher. Reference of earlier litigations at the instance of the petitioner's father has also been given. However, it was then clarified that the property in question is different than that of the property of his father and therefore, any notice or order of the Court in reference to the petitioner's father would not be applicable in the case on hand. In the light of the above, the challenge to the order has been made. It is more so when the respondents have not even caused survey or enquiry to find out whether construction of the houses is on the land belonging to the Highways. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted written arguments to the Court today where more or less same grounds have been reiterated and it was further added that the petitioner is entitled to patta for the land and the application for it is pending before the authorities, thus, the prayer is to consider his case under the Act of 2013. It is also stated that the Highways Act of 2001 is non est in the eye of law as it is hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India being in conflict with the Act of 2013 and for that purpose, reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 177 has been made. 5. A reference of the recent order passed by the Apex Court in the case of D.Rajkumar vs. The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, in a Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.11659 to 11663 of 2022 dated 15.07.2022 has also been given, where the petitioners therein had prayed for withdrawal of the SLP for the purpose of moving appropriate application for rehabilitation/ relocation as per the scheme of the Government contained in G.O. No.318 dated 30.08.2019 and G.O. No.267 dated 17.09.2021. The permission sought by the petitioners therein for withdrawal of the SLP was granted and the said order squarely applies to the case on hand. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter after referring to the material produced by the petitioner. 7. The permission sought by the petitioners therein for withdrawal of the SLP was granted and the said order squarely applies to the case on hand. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter after referring to the material produced by the petitioner. 7. The writ petition basically challenges the order dated 12.07.2021 of the fourth respondent with a prayer that no action be taken to dispossess the petitioner treating him to be an encroacher. The reference of the earlier litigations in reference to the land stated to be of his father was given. The orders passed by this Court and also by the Apex Court have also been given. The order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Apex Court shows that the petitioner had challenged the notice dated 19.11.2020 issued by the Tamil Nadu Highways Department under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act of 2001. The challenge was made on the ground that it is a village site and therefore, Section 28 of the Act of 2001 could not have been applied. The Apex Court, upon consideration of the order of the High Court, directed the authority to consider the reply to the legal notice given by the petitioner within a period of three weeks and till such time, not to create third party rights in respect of the property in question. 8. On perusal of the materials placed before the Court, we find that one way or the other, either the petitioner or his father Madhaiyan or his brother Kamalakannan have filed petitions before this Court and the Apex Court with regard to the same survey number and obtained orders granting extension of time to vacate the property and also a direction to approach the Government seeking alternate accommodation. The material placed before us also clarifies that the land in question was initially classified as 'Road Margin' and subsequently, it was changed to 'Grama Natham' and again, finding it to be an insertion with false documents, it was reclassified as 'Road Margin' by the proceedings of the Sub Collector. The report of the Tahsildar, Mettur, dated 10.08.2021 also shows that the patta sought by the petitioner for the land in question was also rejected. The report of the Tahsildar, Mettur, dated 10.08.2021 also shows that the patta sought by the petitioner for the land in question was also rejected. In view of the above, it is clear that the land in question belongs to the Highways Department and the petitioner and his family have encroached the land of highways. 9. The challenge to the eviction notice has been made in reference to the other litigations initiated by his father and an order passed therein. The petitioner himself was also a litigant before this Court and filed an SLP which was dismissed approving the order of this Court but directing the respondents to consider and pass orders in reference to the reply to the legal notice dated 23.11.2020. The petitioner tried to mislead the Court by stating that the earlier litigation pertains to his father's land, whereas the subject matter of the land therein was also the same. However, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to produce the documents to show that the land belonging to the petitioner is different than that of his father. No documents could be produced to substantiate the same. In view of the above, the effort of the petitioner was to mislead the Court and that fact has been recorded in the earlier order dated 08.08.2022 where a direction was given to remove the encroachment as no document has been produced to show that it is a natham land or that the petitioner has a right to possess the land. 10. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the respondents have removed the encroachment and a report is placed before the Court today along with the photographs. However, even now, challenge is made regarding the application of the Act of 2001 by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 177 , supra. The reference of the judgment has been made again to mislead the Court because the case on hand does not pertain to the acquisition of land by the respondents, but for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner and others. The reference of the judgment has been made again to mislead the Court because the case on hand does not pertain to the acquisition of land by the respondents, but for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner and others. The judgment of the Apex Court in reference to Article 254 of the Constitution of India was to the extent of repugnancy of the provisions of the State Act in reference to the Central Act and otherwise, this argument would have been raised by the petitioner while pressing the SLP before the Apex Court which was decided by the order dated 25.01.2021 after giving a specific reference of Section 28(2)(ii) of the Act of 2001. At no point of time, the petitioner ever raised an issue in reference to the application of the Act of 2001 on the strength that the entire Act has been declared unconstitutional and is not applicable. 11. That apart, today also, a reference of the order of the Apex Court dated 15.07.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.11659-11663 of 2022 (D.Rajkumar vs. The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department) has been given in reference to the Act of 2013 to seek rehabilitation of the petitioner ignoring the fact that the subject matter of the case on hand is not in reference to any action under the Act of 2013 so as to seek rehabilitation, but it is in reference to removal of encroachment, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2013 would have no application. An encroacher cannot seek rehabilitation by invoking the provisions of Act of 2013. It has to be further clarified that the scheme for resettlement of the encroachers has not been accepted by this Court as it would result in nothing but to promote encroachment. It was for the reason that if the encroachers are given right to seek resettlement before removal of the possession, it would enhance the tendency of the people to encroach the land and as and when action is taken to remove encroachment, to seek resettlement. It was not approved by this Court. 12. It was for the reason that if the encroachers are given right to seek resettlement before removal of the possession, it would enhance the tendency of the people to encroach the land and as and when action is taken to remove encroachment, to seek resettlement. It was not approved by this Court. 12. In the light of the discussion made above and in the absence of any document to prove the right of the petitioner to possess the land of the Highways, we do not find any ground to cause interference in the order under challenge, especially when the removal of encroachment would be to the extent of the land of Highways. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.16777 of 2021 is closed.