W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 Gunasekaran ... Petitioner vs 1. The District Collector, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District. 3. Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways Authority, Collectorate, Ariyalur. 4. The Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition Unit - II for NH 227, National Highways Authority, Collectorate, Ariyalur. 5. The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly writ in the 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation for trees to be cut for the widening of Road, viz., NH 22 from Trichy to Chidambaram at 66/7-8, 67-68 miles, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2018. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Balu For R1 to R3 : Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan Additional Government Pleader ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for trees to be cut for widening of Road viz., NH 22 from Trichy to Chidambaram at 66/7-8, 67-68 Miles, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2018. 2. Heard Mr. K. Balu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1955-1956, Tiruchi- Chidambaram Road was laid by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 Government also decided to plant trees on two sides of the road for the welfare of the people and to increase the plantation. At that juncture, the petitioner's father planted 200 numbers of different varieties of trees viz., Mango tree, Tamarind Tree, Neem Tree, Banyan Tree etc., on two sides of the Tiruchi-Chidambaram Road at 67/4-8, 68/1 miles. In fact, a Resolution No.1173 dated 21.05.1956 by the Village Panchayat, was passed in this regard. Further, the District Board Office, Thiruchirappalli, by its proceedings R.O.C.C.3.48353/55 dated 25.04.1956, duly granted permission to plant trees on the margin of the District Board Roads in Tiruchi-Chidambaram Road at 66/7-8, 67-68 Miles to the petitioner's father and also directed the President to execute an agreement for the same. Accordingly, the petitioner's father had planted trees. He was also permitted to enjoy the trees. 4. While being so, the third respondent issued notification under Section 3A (1) of NH Act, 1956, for implementing the project for widening, straightening and upgradation to four/two laning the stretch from Trichy-Chidambaram NH 227. Accordingly, the third respondent issued notice to the respective land patta holders and land owners. They had appeared before the Acquisition Officer and received compensation. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 However, the petitioner was not awarded any compensation for the tress which were cut down for the extension of road. 5. A perusal of the agreement entered between the petitioner-s father and the District Board office, registered vide Document No.3317 of 1956 revealed as follows:~ “ ku';fs; el;l c &hfhf;fSk; ku';fSk; j';fSf;nf ghj;jpak; vdf;F ghj;jpak; ,y;iy/ ic& ku';fspy; cz;lhFk; kfR{y; gyd;fis kl;Lk; ehDk; vd; thupRfSk; mila ghj;jpak; ic& rhiyapy; nkYk; nkYk; ku';fs; itj;J ghJfhj;J fha;g;g[ ku';fspd; kfR{y; gyd;fis kl;LmilntDft[k; ,e;j epge;jidfspd; nghpy; jh';fs; ic& ku';fsl el;L gapupl mDkjp bfhLj;jpUf;fpwPu;fs;/” 6. Accordingly, though the petitioner was permitted to plant trees, the trees which were planted by the petitioner belongs to District Board and the petitioner was permitted to enjoy only the usfructs of the trees. Further, it is also seen from the permission which was granted by the District Board Office, through the proceedings dated 25.04.1956 that the petitioner's father was permitted to enjoy only the usufructs of the trees planted by him. Therefore, though the petitioner was permitted to plant trees, he was not permitted to own the trees. That apart, the two sides of the Tiruchi~Chidambaram Road at 67/4-8, 68/1 miles belongs to the fifth 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 respondent and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation for the trees which were planted by his father. Therefore, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered and this writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 13.02.2025 Internet : Yes / No Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order Bga 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 To 1. The District Collector, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District. 3. Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways Authority, Collectorate, Ariyalur. 4. The Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition Unit - II for NH 227, National Highways Authority, Collectorate, Ariyalur. 5. The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. bga W.P.No. 16678 of 2021 13.02.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis