ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the acquired lands comprised in S.Nos.29/17, 29/18 and 30B/A2 of Arappedu Village measuring an extent of 18 cents and forbearing the respondents from acquiring the lands without following the due process of law. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the subject properties were owned by his aunt Adhilakshmi Ammal and she executed a Will dated 20.02.1997 in favour of the petitioner. During her life time, the patta stood in her name in patta Nos.17 and 506 issued by the 6 th respondent. The petitioner's aunt died on 02.12.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner became the owner of the property by virtue of the Will. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Southern Railways without adopting any due process of law proceeded to utilise the lands and hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for payment of compensation and to forbear the respondents from utilising the land. 4. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.12.2024, this Court passed the following order:- The communication dated 04.09.2024, addressed by the Special Tahsildar to the learned Special Government Pleader handed over to the Court reads as follows:- 2. From the above letter, it appears that the contention of the respondents is that the lands in Survey No.22 has not been acquired and it further states as follows:- 3. Therefore, directions are issued today to the Special Tahsildar to measure, demarcate and fix the boundaries of Survey No.22 and report to this Court on 06.01.2025 with the sketches etc. 4. Post the case on 06.01.2025." 5. Pursuant to the above order, a survey was conducted and a report was submitted by the Tahsildhar and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- Along with the report, the Tahsildhar has also annexed the revenue records, which shows that the patta has been issued for the subject property in the name of Adhilakshmi Ammal, who is the aunt of the petitioner. 6. It is clear from the report that insofar as S.No.29/17 is concerned, the Southern Railways has not acquired the property and it is free from encumbrance. The sub-way has been put up only insofar as S.No.29/18 and S.No.30B/4A2 is concerned. 7. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit. 6. It is clear from the report that insofar as S.No.29/17 is concerned, the Southern Railways has not acquired the property and it is free from encumbrance. The sub-way has been put up only insofar as S.No.29/18 and S.No.30B/4A2 is concerned. 7. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:- " 6. I respectfully submit that the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit are not within the direct knowledge of this respondent. I further submit that Survey No.29/18, measuring an extent of 0.03.0 hectares (8 cents), is a village approach road that exists and passes through this field. This road is actively used by the local public and is not under the control or usage of the Railways. I submit that similarly the survey No.30/4A2 and extent of 0.04.0 Hectares (10 cents), is a village approach road that exists and passes through this field. This road is actively used by the local public and is not under the control or usage of the Railways. 7. I respectfully submit that the averments made in para 3 and 4 of the affidavit are stoutly denied as false and the petitioner is put to strict proof to prove the same. I submit that the LUS (Limited Use Subway) has been constructed in place of LC-79 solely on the pre-existing road, passing through field survey No(s).29/18, 30B/4A2 which have been under the usage of the local public for a long period. Hence there was no necessity for any land acquisition. 11. I respectfully submit that the averments made in para 8 are denied as false. I submit that the LUS has been constructed solely on the pre-existing road, which has been in use by the local public for a long period. As the road was already in public use, there was no necessity for issuing a notice or following other land acquisition procedures. I submit that there is no encroachment and hence the procedure of land acquisition is not required. I submit that the revenue department stated that only S.No.29/18 and 30/4A2 are falling in this LUS structure, which is only constructed in place of the existing LC-79. I submit that the Revenue Department has explicitly stated that only Survey Nos.29/18 and 30/4A2 fall within the LUS structure, and the same was constructed in place of the pre-existed LC-79. I submit that the revenue department stated that only S.No.29/18 and 30/4A2 are falling in this LUS structure, which is only constructed in place of the existing LC-79. I submit that the Revenue Department has explicitly stated that only Survey Nos.29/18 and 30/4A2 fall within the LUS structure, and the same was constructed in place of the pre-existed LC-79. However, the petitioner has erroneously claimed more than two survey numbers. I submit that both the petitioner and the Revenue Department reports have failed to acknowledge the existence of a long standing road that has been in continuous use by local villagers. I also submit that, at present, this respondent department has not created any new structures in the aforementioned fields at LC-79. Instead, the department is merely carrying out routine repairs and regular maintenance works solely in the interest of railway tract integrity and public safety." 8. Heard Mr. K.A. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Jeyaganeshan, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 5 to 7. 9. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation for utilisation of the lands in S.Nos.29/18 and 30B/4A2, totally measuring an extent of 15.63 cents. The main defence that has been taken by the Southern Railways is that the subject property in S.Nos.29/18 and 30B/4A2 was used as approach road by the local public and this road passes through the field of the petitioner and therefore, there is no need for acquisition or payment of compensation. 10. The learned Senior Panel Counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27153 of 2016 dated 23.01.2018. 11. This Court carefully went through the judgment that was relied upon by the learned Senior Panel Counsel. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has dealt with the scope of the Revenue Standing Order 26 (15), which deals with Nilaviyal Pathai/Pathway/Cart Tract running in the patta land. 11. This Court carefully went through the judgment that was relied upon by the learned Senior Panel Counsel. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has dealt with the scope of the Revenue Standing Order 26 (15), which deals with Nilaviyal Pathai/Pathway/Cart Tract running in the patta land. The Division Bench held that the cart tract which is running in the patta land should be treated as Government land and therefore, if any encroachment is made in the said land, even by the owner of the property, it has to be removed in order to ensure that the pathway is continued to be used by the local public. 12. In the case in hand, it is seen that the patta stood in the name of the petitioner's aunt for both S.Nos.29/18 and 30B/4A2. The specific report submitted by the Tahsildar is that the sub-way has now been laid over these two properties to the extent of 15.63 cents. In view of the same, the nature of the property, which was used as a pathway now stands changed. In other words, till such a pathway was available in the property belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have prevented the usage of the pathway by the local public. That would not mean that the petitioner has absolutely no right over the property. The only right that is not available to the petitioner is to stop the local public from using the same as public pathway. Due to subsequent event, if the subway has now been put up to the extent of 15.63 cents in S.Nos.29/18 and 30B/4A2, obviously, the petitioner will be entitled for the payment of compensation. 13. The right to payment of compensation was discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024) . The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the payment of a fair compensation for acquisition of land is a fundamental right that is available to the owner of the land. The right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Useful reference can be made to paragraph No.30.5 in the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- 30.5. The right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Useful reference can be made to paragraph No.30.5 in the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- 30.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation: (i) A person's right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition. (ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, are the statutory incorporations of the right to restitute a person whose land has been compulsorily acquired. (iii) Our courts have not only considered that compensation is necessary, but have also held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process." 14. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner will be entitled for payment of compensation with respect to 15.63 cents of land in S.Nos.29/18 and 30B/4A2 over which the subway has already been laid by the Southern Railway. Hence, there shall be a direction to the 5 th respondent namely, the District Collector, Chengalpattu District, to immediately, conduct an enquiry and determine the payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The compensation determined shall be paid to the petitioner by the Southern Railway. 15. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.