the father in law of the 1st petitioner and had issued legal notice to the tenants of the 1st petitioner requiring them to pay the rent to them and to attorn the tenancy in their favour. Subsequently, they filed a suit in O.S.No.641 of 2004 on the file the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee against the 1st petitioner claiming right over the land comprised in S.No.188/25 wherein while describing the schedule of the property, one of the boundaries of the suit property was mentioned as the land comprised in S.No.188/1A which belonged to the 1st petitioner's husband and had obtained an order of injunction. When the 1st petitioner moved an application seeking to vacate the order of ad-interim injunction, the application was dismissed by learned District Munsif holding that the 1st petitioner herein was claiming right over the land in S.No.188/1A and whereas the respondents 2 and 3 were claiming right over the land comprised in S.No.188/25 which is not related to the 1st petitioner's property. Taking advantage of the interlocutory order, the respondents 2 and 3 appear to have executed a sale deed claiming that they are the owner of the properties comprised in Survey No.188/1A and Survey No.188/25 through their power of attorney one Mr.K.Ziauddeen. In the said circumstances, the 1st petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.330 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Poonamallee seeking for a decree declaring her title in respect of the land in S.No.188/1A and for a permanent injunction and also to declare the sale deed dated 14.12.2009 executed by the respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the 4th respondent herein as null and void. The said suit is pending. In the mean time, the 1st respondent sought to acquire the front portion of the land and buildings consist of 3 shops measuring 128 square feet belonging to the petitioners situate at S.No.188/1A under the Tamil Nadu State Highways Act, 2001 (herein after called as "the Act") and the petitioners were issued with an award enquiry notice. During the Award Enquiry, the 1st petitioner had appeared and produced all the necessary documents to establish her title. Thereafter, no order was passed and compensation amount has also not been paid to the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the 1st petitioner had sent several representations seeking for compensation. The grievance of the petitioner is that her repeated representations for payment of compensation evoked no response. Hence, this writ petition.
