Madras High Court
Chitra vs The District Collector on 13 June, 2022
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
Chitra .. Appellant
Vs
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate Office,
Kallakurichi.
2.The Sub Collector,
Sub Collector Office,
Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi District.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Office,
Revenue Tahsildar Office Compound,
Southern Railway,
Kallakurichi District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 13.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.6873 of 2021.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For the Respondents : Mr.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment
dated 13.07.2021, whereby the writ petition preferred to set aside
the finding rendered by the District Collector, Kallakurichi, in the
award dated 26.09.2020 to the effect that the appellant is not
entitled for the compensation, was dismissed.
2. The order of the District Collector was on the issue of
apportionment of the compensation. The only owner of the land in
S.Nos.5/2B2, 5/2C2 and 5/2D1 measuring 0.52 acres is the appellant.
However, ignoring the aforesaid and without any pendency of the
litigation inter se the parties, the award amount was not released in
favour of the appellant. The matter was not referred to the Civil
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
Court even the District Collector invoked the provision under Section
9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act,
1997 [for short, "the Act of 1997"]. It is stated that the appeal
preferred by one of the claimants was dismissed for non-prosecution
and the restoration application to restore the appeal was also
thereupon dismissed and thus the order has become final. Yet, the
District Collector, exercising power under Section 9 of the Act of
1997, failed to direct for release of the compensation amount in
favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also failed to
take note of the aforesaid while recording finding that the matter has
been referred to the Civil Court where the appellant can establish her
title and get the compensation released though no order to refer to
the Civil Court has been passed.
3. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials available on
record.
4. The order of the District Collector shows not only the claim
made by the appellant for releasing of the compensation to her, but
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
also challenged the determination of the compensation and to invoke
Section 8 of the Act of 1997 as defined under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [for brevity "the Act of 1894] so as to taken up
subsequently under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894. The District
Collector has to refer the matter under Section 8 of the Act of 1997
and pass an order at the instance of the appellant challenging the
quantum determined in the award and it would be taken up now by a
Reference Court under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1997. However, the
issue as to who is entitled to receive the compensation is also to be
determined and for that the District Collector is not the competent
authority. In that case, the matter has to be referred to the Civil
Court as per Section 9 of the Act of 1997.
5. It is seen that the matter having been referred invoking
Section 8 of the Act of 1997, the issue regarding apportionment of
compensation was dealt with. But the District Collector has failed to
refer the matter to the Civil Court so as to determine the entitlement
of the party to receive the compensation.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with modification of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.07.2021 so as the
order of the District Collector dated 26.09.2020 to the effect that by a
separate proceedings, the matter is referred to the Civil Court in
regard to apportionment of the compensation. It is in reference to
Section 9 of the Act of 1997 and the Civil Court would determine the
said issue as to who is entitled to receive the compensation. It would
not wait for the outcome of the reference under Section 8 of the Act
of 1997 in regard to enhancement of the compensation and that
would be a separate issue to be pursued by the appellant for that
purpose. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.6865 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (N.M., J.)
13.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
To:
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate Office,
Kallakurichi.
2.The Sub Collector,
Sub Collector Office,
Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi District.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition Office,
Revenue Tahsildar Office Compound,
Southern Railway,
Kallakurichi District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
N.MALA, J.
bbr
W.A.No.1118 of 2022
13.06.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
