Madras High Court
A.S. Kasthurirangan … vs The District Collector on 6 July, 2021
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
A.S. Kasthurirangan … Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Chennai Collectorate,
Chennai 1.
2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Highways I.R.R Scheme,
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk,
Chennai Collectorate, Chennai -01 ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondents to pay
the compensation along with interest for the property duly acquired after
proper determination of the compensation by the competent authority and
also permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount credited in the account of
the Registrar, City Civil Court, under the Award No.02/2009 dated
21.10.2009.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
For petitioner ... Mr. P. Sunil Alias Sunil Prakash
For respondents ... Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to pay
compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired.
2. According to the petitioner, on 15.04.1974, the petitioner has
purchased the land in Survey No.336/2, Plot No.2, Srinivasa Nagar 1st
Cross Road, No.137, Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpettu
District, to an extent of 3600 sq.ft from one P.S. Raghavan. Subsequently, in
the year 2003, the said land was acquired under the Tamilnadu Highways
Act without issuing any notice whatsoever to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner came to know that the award was also passed and the award
amount has also been deposited under Section 21(2) and 22(3) of the
Highways Act 34 of 2002 on the file of the LAOP No.04/2011 before the
VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in the name of the vendor of the
petitioner, namely P.S.Raghavan. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know
that LAOP was dismissed by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
Chennai for non prosecution and the reference was closed. Immediately, the
petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation to
him. Since, no order has been passed , the present writ petition has been
filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has purchased the property on 15.04.1974. But, the land
acquisition proceedings has been initiated only in the year 2003 in the name
of his vendor without issuing any notice whatsoever to the petitioner and
award was also passed in the name of the vendor, and the award amount
was deposited before the Civil Court. After coming to know about the same,
the petitioner approached the authorities to pay the awarded amount to the
petitioner. But, so far no order has been passed. He would further submit
that the reference Court also dismissed the reference without considering
the fact that the Reference Court cannot dismissed the reference for default,
and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs., /vs/ Union of India reported in AIR 2002
SC 726. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
" 7. The provisions above subsumed would thus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
make it clear that the Civil Court has to pass an
award in answer to the reference made by the
Collector under S.18 of the Act. If any party to whom
notice has been served by the Civil Court did not
participate in the inquiry it would only be at his risk
because an award would be passed perhaps to the
detriment of the concerned party. But non-
participation of any party would not confer
jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the
reference for default."
According to the petitioner, he is the lawful owner of the property and
compensation should necessarily be paid to him.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would submit that even though the petitioner said to have
purchased the property in the year 1974, Revenue Records has not been
mutated in the name of the petitioner. As per the revenue records, the
property stands in the name of his vendor. Therefore, the authorities
concerned issued notice to his vendor and passed award in his name and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
petitioner cannot find fault on the respondents. The petitioner has failed to
mutate the revenue records. If the petitioner mutated the records, notice
might have been sent to the petitioner. That apart, now the amount has been
deposited before the Civil Court under 21(2) and 22(3) of the Highways Act
34 of 2002. After depositing the amount before the Civil Court, the
respondent becomes Functus officio. Hence, the petitioner has to approach
the Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The respondents herein cannot
pass any order with regard to paying compensation to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
records carefully.
6. Admittedly, award has been passed in the name of the
vendor of the petitioner, namely, one P.S. Raghavan and the amount has
been deposited under Section 21(2) and 22(3) of the Tamilnadu Highways
Act in LAOP No.4 of 2011 in the name of the petitioner's vendor P.S.
Raghavan. Now, it is stated that the Reference Court dismissed the LAOP
for non prosecution and closed the reference. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the Reference Court cannot dismissed the
reference for non prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
case of Khazan Singh(dead) by LRs /vs/ Union of India reported in AIR
2002 SC 726(supra). The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the
property in the year 1974, and the original owner P.S.Raghavan is also not
claiming any right over the compensation.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner is directed to file a petition to restore the LAOP.No. 4 of 2011,
before the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such
petition, the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is
directed restore the LAOP and conduct enquiry and complete the same and
pass final orders on the reference, on merits and in accordance with law,
within a period of six(6) months thereafter. The petitioner is directed to file
necessary documents to establish his title.
8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
06.07.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
mrp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Chennai Collectorate,
Chennai 1.
2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Highways I.R.R Scheme,
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk,
Chennai Collectorate, Chennai -01
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp
W.P. No.1632 of 2021
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
