Madras High Court
P.Sethupathy vs Nallammal on 2 September, 2021
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.2273 of 2018 and C.M.P. No.18149 of 2018
P.Sethupathy ... Appellant/2nd respondent
versus
1.Nallammal
2.Poovathal
3.Sarasthal
4.Ramasamy @ Thattukarar Chinnarasu
5.K.Saraswathy
6.Competent Authority and Special District
Revenue Officer (LA),
NH 47 & 67, Coimbatore.
7.The Project Director,
Project implementation Unit,
Coimbatore, National Highways Authority of India,
No.11/1, Kongu Nagar (Backside of Appasamy apt),
Ramanthapuram,
Coimbatore - 641 045 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 15.02.2018, passed in W.P.No.29228 of 2016.
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
For Appellant :Mr.J.Rajmohan
For Respondents :Mr.V.Raghavachari for R1 to R5
Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate for R6
No Appearance for R7
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA,J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed, questioning the correctness of
the impugned order dated 15.12.2018, passed in W.P.No.29228 of 2016, by
a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the Government of India, in the Gazette of India, have notified the
Special District Revenue Officer (L.A), N.H-47, Coimbatore, as Competent
Authority for building (widening/six laning etc.) maintenance, management
and operation of N.H.47 in Coimbatore and Tiruppur District and the said
notification was published in the Gazette of India No.2441 Extraordinary
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
issue of Part II Section - 3, Sub-section (ii) and S.O.No.2879(E), dated
01.12.2010 under Section 3D (1) of N.H.Act 1956. While so, an award was
passed for the acquisition of an extent of 71251 Sq.Mts of agricultural land
and 6160 Sq.Mts of plot land including an extent of 581 Sq. Mts. of
agricultural land in S.F.No.727/2 of Karumathampatti Village, Tiruppur
District. Subsequently, the appellant appeared for an enquiry claiming
ownership of the land covered in S.F.No.727/2 of Karumathampatti Village
among other Survey numbers as per the gift settlement deed dated
06.10.2006 made by the appellant and his two brothers. At the time of the
said enquiry, the appellant has also filed the following documents in support
of his claim:
a) Ownership Report dated.02.03.2011
given by V.A.O., Karumathampatti in f/o
Thiru.P.Sethupathy as per Doc.No.11212/2006;
b) Computerized Chitta, 'A' Register
extract and Adangal Extract for S.F.No.727/2 in Patta
No.2276 of Karumathampatti Village in
f/o.Thiru.P.Sethupathy; and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
c) Encumbrance Certificate No.2771 for
the period from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.1986 and
E.C.No.2770 dated 09.02.2011 for the period from
01.01.1987 to 08.02.2011.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that
objecting the same, the writ petitioner No.4/4th respondent herein also
presented a petition dated 03.02.2011 in favour of himself and in favour of
the other writ petitioners stating that one Thiru.Rangasamy, the grandfather-
in-law of the first writ petitioner-Nallammal and the 5th writ petitioner
K.Saraswathy and the grandfather of the 2nd writ petitioner Poovathal, 3rd
writ petitioner - Sarasathal and the 5th writ petitioner - Ramasamy and the
grandfather of one another Mylathal W/o.Subramaniya Gounder, claiming
ownership of the property as per patta No.883. The appellant, who
appeared for enquiry, on 23.12.2011, presented all the necessary documents
showing his ownership and title of the land-in-question covered in
S.F.No.727/2, situated at Karumathampatti Village. The appellant also
requested the writ petitioners to produce the patta and other revenue
records. But till date, not even a single document was produced.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would also submit that
firstly, since the writ petitioners were able to get patta behind the back of
the appellant from the Tahsildar, Sulur, aggrieved by the same, the appellant
filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, which
was dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Coimbatore, by proceedings dated 28.09.2012, the same was also
put to challenge before the District Revenue Officer by way of revision.
The District Revenue Officer, after entertaining the relevant documents
proving the ownership and the title of the land in favour of the appellant
herein and finding nothing from the side of the writ petitioners, finally
passed a detailed order holding that the appellant is the owner of the land-
in-question. Accordingly, the District Revenue Officer set aside the order,
passed by the Tahsildar dated 16.09.2011 and the another order passed by
the Revenue Divisional Officer on 28.09.2012. Since the District Revenue
Officer has finally passed the order dated 25.05.2016, till date, the writ
petitioners have not questioned the correctness of the said order, hence, the
said order has become final. Thus, such an approach of the writ petitioners
shows that they have accepted the entry made by the Revenue Authorities in
the Revenue records in respect of land-in-question.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that
secondly, the Competent Authority accepting the various documents
produced by the appellant and also finding no iota of evidence in support of
the writ petitioners, passed a detailed order holding that the appellant is the
owner of the land. While so, it is not known as to why the writ petitioners
have not even approached the competent Civil Court to establish the title of
land in question in their favour. Thirdly, learned Single Judge has also
passed an order, directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. When the
writ petitioners having lost before the competent authority and also before
the Revenue Authorities namely, Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and
District Revenue Officer respectively, it is not known why they have not
even taken any steps to file a Civil suit for obtaining decree for declaration
of title in their favour. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the
learned Single Judge.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant would also submit that
fourthly, the justification shown in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge directing the parties to approach the Civil Court under
Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for apportionment of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
the compensation, cannot reach its finality, unless the writ petitioners get a
decree of declaration in their favour, especially, when the competent
authority has already given a finding on the basis of the sale deed dated
22.06.1990, holding that the appellant is the absolute owner of land in
question. With these submission, he prayed for allowing the appeal,
7. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners/respondents 1 to 5 herein would submit that the District Revenue
Officer, Coimbatore has already passed an order by setting aside the orders
passed by the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, it is
not necessary to file any appeal, since the learned Single Judge directed
both parties to approach the competent reference Court and to get an order
for the apportionment of the compensation deposited by the competent
authority. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. But, we are unable to find any merit on the submissions of
the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5. It is to be noted that the
competent authority/Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH-47&67,
Coimbatore, has held against the writ petitioners that they have not
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
produced any documentary evidence to prove their ownership of the
acquired land. Unfortunately, again, it is to be noted that the writ
petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence either before the
learned Single Judge or before us. Therefore, when the writ petitioners
have not substantiated their case, a direction issued by the learned Single
Judge to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the
National Highways Act is unnecessary. When the award was not
questioned by the respondents 1 to 5/writ petitioners, they cannot challenge
the disbursement of compensation to the appellant. A perusal of the order
of the competent authority shows that the appellant is the absolute owner of
the land acquired. It further states that the land held by the appellant was
originally sold by one Rangasamy. On the other hand, the case of the
respondents 1 to 5 would show that Tmt.Nallammal who is the wife of
grandson of Rangasamy, Tmt.Poovathal, Tmt.Sarasthal, Tmt.Mylathal who
are granddaughters of Rangasamy, Thiru.Ramasamy, grandson of
Rangasamy and Tmt.K.Saraswathi, filed a petition on 03.02.2011 through
Ramasamy stating that they are the legal heirs of Thiru.Rangasamy.
Thereafter, accepting the said petition, a notice for enquiry was sent on
09.04.2012, but, the writ petitioners did not produce any documentary
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
evidence to prove their ownership. Therefore, the findings of the learned
Single Judge that the competent authority has not given reasons is
erroneous. Even, if we accept the argument of the appellant for a moment
that they can approach the Competent Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, for considering the question of
apportionment of the compensation deposited by the competent authority,
yet we will not be in a position to pass orders in favour of the writ
petitioners for the simple reason that there is no documentary evidence
produced to show that the land acquisition proceeding is against the
appellant, secondly, when the competent authority has given a specific
finding on the basis of the sale deed and revenue records produced by the
appellant, ironically, the writ petitioners have not produced any evidence
contrary thereto. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single
Judge has committed an error.
9. Thus, for the reason stated above, we are unable to find any
justification in the order of the learned Single Judge, therefore, we have no
hesitation to set aside the said order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed by setting
aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It is made clear that the
appellant is entitled to receive the compensation. Consequently, C.M.P.
No.18149 of 2018 is closed. No costs.
[T.R.,J] [T.V.T.S.,J]
02.09.2021
ub
To
1.The Competent Authority and Special District
Revenue Officer (LA),
NH 47 & 67,
Coimbatore.
2.The Project Director,
Project implementation Unit,
Coimbatore, National Highways Authority of India,
No.11/1, Kongu Nagar (Backside of Appasamy apt),
Ramanthapuram,
Coimbatore - 641 045.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A. No.2273 of 2018
T.RAJA,J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
W.A.No.2273 of 2018
02.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
