Madras High Court
Mrs.Anusuya vs The Special District Revenue ... on 5 October, 2021
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
1.Mrs.Anusuya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition,
National Highways,
Kancheepuram & Thiruvallur Districts,
Kancheepuram.
2.Mallika
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents.
(3rd respondent impleaded vide
order dated 07.09.2021 made in
W.M.P.No.16505 of 2021 in
W.P.No.21529 of 2017 by GKIJ)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 19.05.2017 vide proceedings
Na.Ka.177/2007/NH45 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
respondent to refer the dispute to the 3rd respondent being the Arbitrator
under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act for further disposal of
the award amount and to pay the compensation in accordance with law.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 07.09.2021 made in W.M.P.No.16528 of
2021 in W.P.No.21529 of 2017 by GKIJ).
For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi
for Mr.G.Ilamurugu
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Govt. Advocate for R1
Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi for R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings
dated 19.05.2017 vide proceedings Na.Ka.177/2007/NH45 and quash the
same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute to the
3rd respondent being the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act for further disbursement of the award amount and to pay the
compensation in accordance with law.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in
S.No.177B1A1A admeasuring 3 cents situated at Irumbuliyur Village,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, originally owned by one
Narayanasamy Pillai, who in turn, executed Settlement Deed, in favour of
his minor grand children on 30.03.1974, registered vide Doc.No.1226/1974.
While that being so, the said Narayanasamy Pillai without cancelling the
said Settlement Deed had executed the Sale Deed in favour of one
Krishnapillai on 26.11.1975, vide registered Doc.No.4391/1975. The 2nd
respondent is the daughter of the said Krishnapillai. However, the settlees
have filed a suit in O.S.No.1103 of 1993 for declaration to declare the
subject property of the title in their favour. By judgment and decree dated
21.01.1997, it was decreed in their favour. Pending the suit itself, the
petitioner has purchased the land from the settlees, namely, the plaintiff in
the suit subject property and registered the same on 17.04.1996, vide
Doc.No.1840/1996. However, the defendant in the suit namely Krishna
Pillai who purchased the subject property from the said Narayanasamy
Pillai by the Sale Deed dated 26.11.1975 has filed an appeal suit in
A.S.No.48 of 2001 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu. The
judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside. Even then, the
petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the suit. In the appeal suit the
said Krishna Pillai was also impleaded as a party and his vendor failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
appear before the appellate Court and he was set exparte. The subject
property got acquired by the 1st respondent for the purpose of widening the
road being N.H-45 under the National Highways Act. The petitioner
participated in the award enquiry and also raised questions. Thereafter, the
1st respondent passed an award on 08.01.2014 in respect of the subject
property comprised in T.S.No.25/2.
3. On perusal of the award and the title deed, it reveals that the
petitioner has purchased the subject property from Mrs.Kalavathi
W/o.Mr.Jayaseelan in the year 1996, it seems that the claimant has
purchased a part of the field only and she has not claimed ownership for the
rest of the field and it has to be determined after verification on field.
Therefore, the compensation is withheld under Annexure II of the Award.
Therefore, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for compensation.
However, in the petition submitted by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent
issued notice dated 04.01.2015 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the
documents to ascertain her ownership of the subject property.
4. The 2nd respondent being the daughter of the said Krishna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
Pillai, produced the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.48 of 2001 on
the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Chengalpattu and the said Appeal Suit
was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in
O.S.No.1103 of 1993 was set aside. Therefore, the 1st respondent passed an
order dated 19.05.2017, declaring the subject property in favour of the
2nd respondent's father and therefore, the sale deed produced by the
petitioner cannot be accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a suit in
O.S.No.175 of 2017 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tambaram for
mandatory injunction directing the 1st respondent herein to disburse the
compensation amount to the petitioner herein.
5. On perusal of the decree passed in A.S.No.48 of 2001, dated
24.03.2005, which reads as follows:
''1/ ,k;nky;KiwaPL js;Sgo
bra;ag;gLfpwJ/
2/ fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpd; m/t/vz;/1103 /
93y; 21/01/97 md;W gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[k;
jPh;g;ghiza[k; uj;J bra;ag;gLfpwJ/
3/ ,k;nky;KiwaPl;od; bryt[j; bjhif
PU/NIL vjph;nky;KiwaP;l;lhsUf;F
;nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fs; bfhLf;f ntz;Lbkd;Wk;.
nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fspd; bryt[j; bjhif
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
PU/812/00 I mth;fns Vw;Wf;bfhs;s
ntz;Lbkd;W cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/''
6. Though the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.1103 of 1993, the appeal suit was also dismissed, the
petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent failed to produce any records to
show that the decree passed in Appeal Suit was rectified subsequently.
Therefore, without verifying the above, the 1st respondent passed the
impugned order. In view of the same, the order passed by the 1 st respondent
cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
7. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the
1st respondent dated 19.05.2017 vide proceedings Na.Ka.177/2007/NH45 is
hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for
conducting fresh enquiry. It is made clear that the 1st respondent is directed
to issue notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with liberty to file
necessary documents before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the
1st respondent is directed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with
law regarding disbursement of the compensation amount to the claimants,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties within a period of
four weeks thereafter.
8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
05.10.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
ssn
To
1.The Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition,
National Highways,
Kancheepuram & Thiruvallur Districts,
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Chengalpattu District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,
ssn
W.P.No.21529 of 2017
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
