### Writ Court Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Land Acquisition Compensation Claims Where Statutory Remedies Remain Unexhausted

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed a writ order dated 19.03.2025, which had directed compensation for a Sewage Water Treatment Plant (STP) and machinery following land acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

While the respondent (Hindustan Institute) had already filed an LAOP for general enhancement of compensation, they simultaneously filed a Writ of Mandamus seeking specific/separate compensation for the STP.

The State argued that the STP had already been assessed and included in the original award, making the writ petition an improper remedy for disputed factual questions.

1. Whether disputed facts relating to the quantum of compensation for acquired lands can be adjudicated by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

2. Whether a writ petition is maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001?

The Court primarily applied Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, specifically sub-sections (2) and (5), which mandate the "Determination of amount" through agreement or by providing the aggrieved person an opportunity to state their case before the Collector.

The Court further applied the established principle of "Judicial Review," noting that under Article 226, the High Court’s role is to ensure the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.

It reinforced the doctrine that Writ Courts should not entertain matters involving "disputed facts" that require the scrutiny of evidence, especially when an adequate "alternate remedy" exists under the statute.

The Court observed that the respondent had bypassed the statutory machinery by filing a writ petition instead of exhausting remedies under Section 19 of the Act.

It noted that the Land Acquisition Officer had already passed an award and an LAOP for enhancement was pending; thus, a separate Writ of Mandamus for specific structures (the STP) was inappropriate.

The Court found that the authorities had conducted a joint inspection and the State maintained that the STP was already included in the building assessment.

Since the quantum of compensation is a fact-intensive inquiry requiring verification of documents and roving enquiry, it held that such adjudication by a Writ Court causes prejudice and exceeds the scope of Article 226.

The Court set aside the impugned writ order dated 19.03.2025, allowing the Writ Appeal.

The respondent’s claim for separate compensation for the STP must be pursued through the statutory channels rather than the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.