Madras High Court
Lakshmi Palanikumar vs The District Collector on 1 December, 2023
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P. (MD).No.18624 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P. (MD).No.18624 of 2020
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.15578, 15579 of 2020 and 5711 of 2021
Lakshmi Palanikumar
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Collector Office, Madurai.
2. The Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition, Madurai Natham Road Project,
171, K.K.Nagar, Madurai -625 020.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition, Madurai Natham Road Project,
Arul Malar Convent Road,
Madurai -625 020.
4. M.Uma
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records of the 3rd Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 03/2020/The.Ne(Ni.A.),
dated 27.11.2020 and quash the same as illegal and direct the
Respondents 2 and 3 not to pay the compensation in respect of the
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD).No.18624 of 2020
property acquired in Door No. 1-A, R.S. No.4471/3, New Natham Road,
Madurai -2 and not to pay any further compensation to the 4th
Respondent considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated
27.10.2020 and pending A.S.(MD) 53 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Manohar
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan(R1 to R3)
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.K.Guhan (R4)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the third respondent, dated 27.11.2020 and for a
consequential direction to the respondents not to pay any compensation
for the property that was acquired to the 4th respondent, by considering
the representation made by the petitioner in this regard on 27.10.2017.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the subject property measuring an
extent of 40cents along with superstructure that was acquired by the
Highways Department originally belonged to Late. Manickkam Pillai, the
petitioner, fourth respondent and yet another brother, who are the
daughters and son of Manickkam Pillai. On the demise of Manickkam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pillai, the petitioner and her brother filed a suit in O.S.No.122 of 2007 on
the file of III Additional District Judge, Madurai seeking for the relief of
partition and allotment of 2/3 share in the subject property. The suit was
contested and it was decreed by Judgment and Decree, dated 24.09.2014
by holding that the petitioner and her brother are entitled for 2/3 share in
the property. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed by the trial
Court, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before this Court in
A.S(MD)No.53 of 2015. While entertaining the appeal, this Court
passed an interim order to the effect that other proceedings can go on,
except passing of final decree. This appeal is pending till date.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, the
subject property was acquired by the Highways Department and the
fourth respondent seems to have attended the enquiry and had attempted
to take away the entire compensation amount for the property.
According to the petitioner, she was completely kept in dark and was not
even aware of the acquisition proceedings. On coming to know that the
fourth respondent was attempting to take away the entire compensation
amount, the petitioner made various representations to the second and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
third respondents in this regard. The grievance of the petitioner is that
the third respondent, without recognizing the right of the petitioner in the
subject property had paid the entire compensation amount of
Rs.53,00,564/- to the fourth respondent. This compensation pertains
only to the superstructure and no compensation was paid for the land, on
the ground that it was classified as a Government Poramboke. Aggrieved
by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4.The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. The
relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
“5) Necessary Notification under section 3(A)(1) of
National Highways Act 1956 was published in the Government
of India Gazette No.379 dated 29.01.2019 in S.O 492 dated :
28.01.2019. The contention of the 3(A)(1) Notification was
published in Daily Thanthi and Hindu on 26.02.2019. I submit
that the land in question under schedule of property in this Writ
petition is classified and Registered as Madurai Corporation
Poramboke. Though the contention of 3(A)(1) Notification
under National Highways Act 1956 was published in Daily
News Paper in Daily Thanthi and Hindu on 28.01.2019, no
objection either for the proposed acquisition or claiming the
title over the land either by the petitioner or by the 4th
Respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6) I submit that the qu respondent Selvi. M.Uma has
filed a case in the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai
claiming the title over the land in O.S.203/2019 only on
19.07.2019 stating that the land in question was assigned on
collection of market value in favour of one Thiru.
Veerapathirapillai, Grand father of the 4th Respondent of this
Writ by the Tahsildar Madurai on 27.10.1960 and subsequently
the land was sold to Thiru. Manickampillai son of Thiru
Veerapathirapillai and father of the 4th Respondent of this Writ
petition as per Sale deed No.8382/ 1964 dated 29.12.1964. It
was further stated in the Original Suit pending before the
District Munsif, Madurai Town in 0.S.203/2019 that Thiru.
Manickampillai has transferred the property by virtue of Will
dated 18.02.2002 and registered in the First Joint Sub Registrar
Office on 18.02.2002.
7) Hence the 4th Respondent of, this Writ petition
was summoned for enquiry by the Special Tahsildar(LA-
NH785) Madurai with records on 18.09.2020 and accordingly
Selvi. Uma has appeared for enquiry and produced the
following documents to substantiate her claim for
compensation. I submit that Selvi. Uma was informed that the
compensation for the land under acquisition cannot be
disbursed as the compensation for tie land under acquisition.
But there are structures in the acquired field worth about Rs.
53,00,564/- (Fifty three lakhs and five hundred and sixty four)
only as estimated Highways Engineers, I Submit that she
accepted the conditions stipulated as per Government
instruction and received the compensation. The records
submitted by Selvi. Uma (4th Respondent)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Physically Handicapped Certificate issued by the Officer.
2. Copy of Registered will registered in Doct No.45 dated
18.02.2002 which is in favour of her.
3. Copy of Registered sale deed 8382/64 dated 31.12.1964 in
favour of her father by her Grand father
4. Orders of Madurai North Tahsildar Assessment No. 10.73. 1/
Chokkikulam/ 6.95 dated 18.02.1995 for Urban Land Tax in the
name of Thiru. Manickampillai, father of Selvi. Uma
5. Copy of Receipt for the remittance of Urban Land Tax dated
8.03.95
6. Demand Notice issued by the Commissioner, Madurai
Corporation for Property Tax in the name of Selvi. Uma
7. Copy of extract of Town Survey Records for Ward No. 10,
Block No. 101 T.S. No. 4471 which mentioned as Government
Poramboke
8. Copy of patta Pass Book as Patta No.C27 which denotes for
Government Poramboke. But no patta pass book will be issued
for poramboke land and especially for Town Records.
9. Copy of First page of Bank Pass Book (Canara Bank)
10. Copy of approval of Building Plan by the Corporation
Commissioner.
8) I submit that 4th Respondent of this Writ Petition could not
produce the records relating to Assignment in favour of Thiru.
Veeerapathirapillai and the land in question is classified as
Government Poramboke and registered as Corporation
Poramboke.
Hence I submit that the petitioner is not entitled for
land cost and solatium. But as per NHAI letter
NHAI/14015/1/18/RO Madurai/ 2540 dated 3.12.2019, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
structure falling in Government Poramboke land, only the value
of structure as vetted by state PWD including Highways
Department and no Solatium should be paid.
9. Accordingly the structures cost of Rs.53,00,564/-
was paid to the 4th Respondent Selvi. Uma after satisfying the
records produced by her to substantiate her claim for structure
such as copy of Will, Copy of Demand Notice of Urban Land
Tax, Demand Notice for property Tax by the Corporation and
the approval of Building Plan. As the Corporation itself”
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and
the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
6.The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the fourth respondent had managed to knock off the
entire compensation amount by relying upon a Will that is said to have
been executed in her favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the very same Will was also relied upon before the trial
Court and it was not accepted and that is the reason why the preliminary
decree was passed by granting 2/3 share in favour of the petitioner and
her brother. It was therefore contended that the Authority ought not have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
acted upon the Will, which was not believed by the competent Civil
Court and on that ground alone, the impugned proceedings of the third
respondent is liable to be interfered by this Court.
7.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that right through the
proceeding/enquiry, only the fourth respondent, appeared for the enquiry
and submitted all the relevant documents before the Authority and it was
found that the compensation can be paid only for the building, since the
land was classified as Government Poramboke and accordingly, the cost
of the building to the tune of Rs.53,00,564/- was paid to the fourth
respondent. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the
Authorities are not concerned about the inter se dispute between the
petitioner and the fourth respondent and therefore, it is left open to the
petitioner to claim for the share from the compensation amount that was
paid to the fourth respondent in the pending appeal.
8.The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the
fourth respondent is the absolute owner of the property, by virtue of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Will, dated 18.02.2002 and therefore, the petitioner and her brother are
not entitled for any share in the property. He contended that it will be
established before the Court in the pending appeal. Therefore, there is no
reason to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent by
paying the entire compensation to the fourth respondent.
9.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
10.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is an
inter se dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and the
same ended by way of filing a partition suit in O.S.No.122 of 2007
before the III Additional District Judge, Madurai. In that suit, the fourth
respondent had relied upon the Will said to have been executed in her
favour and the same was disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court
had proceeded to pass a preliminary decree through Judgment and
Decree, dated 24.09.2014 in favour of the petitioner and her brother.
This preliminary decree has been put to challenge and the same is
pending in appeal before this Court in A.S(MD)No.53 of 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.The petitioner was repeatedly informing the official
respondents about the pending dispute before the Civil Court as against
the fourth respondent. When it was brought to the notice of the official
respondents, they should have deposited the amount before the
competent Court, so that, the withdrawal of the amount by the parties can
be based on the final Judgment and Decree passed in the suit/appeal.
Instead the entire compensation has now been paid to the fourth
respondent.
12.No useful purpose will be served in interfereing
and setting aside the proceedings of the third respondent, dated
27.11.2020 at this length of time, since the compensation amount has
gone into the hands of the fourth respondent and the official respondents
cannot now recover the amount from the fourth respondent and give it to
the petitioner due to the pending civil proceedings. Therefore, it will be
more appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to seek for the share in
the compensation amount that was paid to the fourth respondent. In the
considered view of this Court, the official respondents need not have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
hastened the process by paying the entire compensation amount to the
fourth respondent after they were made aware of the fact that there is a
pending civil proceeding between the petitioner and the fourth
respondent. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the third
respondent, dated 27.11.2020 cannot be put against the petitioner while
claiming her share in the compensation amount that was paid to the
fourth respondent. That apart, it was also brought to the notice of this
Court that the petitioner has already filed a petition in M.P.(MD) No.
5589 of 2020 in A.S.(MD)No.53 of 2015 for a direction to the fourth
respondent to deposit the compensation amount received by her in the
pending appeal. In view of the same, it will be left open to the petitioner
to work out her remedy in M.P.(MD)No. 5589 of 2020 and seek for
deposit of the amount and for the payment of the share of the petitioner
and her brother. This liberty will sufficiently take care of the grievance
expressed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.12.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
PNM
To
1. The District Collector,
Collector Office, Madurai.
2. The Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition, Madurai Natham Road Project,
171, K.K.Nagar, Madurai -625 020.
3. The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition, Madurai Natham Road Project,
Arul Malar Convent Road,
Madurai -625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.15578, 15579 of 2020 and 5711 of 2021
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
