Madras High Court
L.Sevuga vs The District Collector on 16 October, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
L.Sevuga ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin.
2.The District Revenue Officer (D.R.O), Tuticorin.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O), Tuticorin.
4.The Tashildar, Tuticorin.
5.The Project Director, NHAI,
2314-E, K.P.Road, Near Ayyappan Koil,
Paravathipuram, Nagercoil -629 993, Tamilnadu.
6.M.Jeno Rita
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the 5th
respondent in Na.Ka.E3/49503/12 and quash the same and consequently,
directing the respondents 1 to 4 to disburse a sum of Rs.1,80,900/- being
the amount withheld by the 5th respondent and to direct the respondents 1
to 4 to delete the name of the 6th respondent from patta no.2032.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan
For R1 to R4 :Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 :Mr.Shankarapandian
for M/s.C.Arul Vadivel Associates
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.09.2020 and for a
consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the amount
that was withheld towards the payment of compensation to the petitioner
for the acquisition of land by National Highways Authorities of India
(NHAI), namely, the fifth respondent.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the property in S.No.25/1B3A1
measuring an extent of 7 acres 73 cents belongs to the petitioner
absolutely by virtue of a family partition. The further case of the
petitioner is that the fifth respondent has initiated acquisition
proceedings and 2025 sq.mtre of land was acquired. Compensation was
also fixed to the tune of Rs.10,93,500/-. Insofar as 335 sq.mtre. of land
is concerned, there was a dispute raised by the sixth respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
hence, out of total compensation, only a sum of Rs.9,12,600/- was paid to
the petitioner and the balance of Rs.1,80,900/- was deposited through the
impugned proceedings of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.
3.The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has
provided the entire details regarding the acquisition proceedings. Insofar
as the dispute regarding the payment of compensation is concerned, the
same is dealt with in the following manner in the counter affidavit:
“5.It is submitted that, meanwhile the Petitioner
made a representation dated 15.03.2018, to the District
Administration, Thoothukudi. The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi has passed orders on
the above representation in his Proceedings
No.E3/49503/12, dated 29.09.2020 as stated below:
“An extent of 0.20.25 Hec (02025 Sq.M) in Survey
No.25/1B3A1 (Total Extent 3.14.5 Hec.), Kootudunkadu
Village, Thoothukudi Taluk has been acquired for installing
the Toll Plaza as per the Award No.1/15, dated 09.11.2015.
The compensation amount of Rs.12,02,850/- was deposited
in the Joint Bank Account of District Revenue Officer,
Thoothukudi and Project Director, NHAI, since no
Pattadars turned up for the Award enquiry. In the
meanwhile it was found that the name of one Mrs.M.Jeno
rita, W/o. Motchaiah, Tuticorin (in this case impleaded as
the sixth respondent) has been included as joint Pattadar in
Patta No.2032, as she purchased an extent of 24.96 Cent in
this survey number 25/1B3A1 through the sale document
No.3679/13, dated 19.09.2013. Since, both the Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
and the sixth respondent have claimed the compensation for
the acquired land, a report was obtained from the
Thoothukudi Taluk Head Surveyor to ascertain the right
over the land. As per the report of the Taluk Head Surveyor,
an extent of 0.03.35 Ares (Hec.) or 335 Sq.m was acquired
in the land, which is claimed to be owned by the Petitioner
as well as the sixth respondent. Hence both the Petitioner
and the sixth respondent have to substantiate their right
over the above disputed 335 Sq.m land through the Civil
Court concerned and the disputed proportionate
compensation amount for 335 Sq.m was ordered to be
withheld subject to the outcome of the judgement of the
Court concerned. The compensation amount of Rs. 9,00,462
/- for the balance land 1690 Sq.m ( 2025 - 335) is ordered to
be disbursed to the Writ Petitioner as detailed below:
Compensation amount for 2025 Sq.m Rs. 10,93,500/-
Compensation amount for 1690 Sq.m = Rs. 9,12,600/-
After deduction of income tax etc., Rs. 1,03,398 /-
the balance amount is Rs. 9,00,462 /-
6. It is respectfully submitted that in this case, as the
NHAI is only the beneficiary and funding agency for the
lands acquired for linear road projects and award amount
was also deposited by NHAI. Further, the Petitioner has to
get relief from the Civil Court concerned for the disputed
portion of the the land and after that the District Revenue
Officer, Thoothukudi has to pass orders on the basis of the
judgement of the Civil court and also the Petitioner has
challenged and filed this writ petition against the District
Revenue Officer's proceedings in which the compensation
amount has been withheld. It is also submitted that soon
after the District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi, passes
orders for the compensation on the outcome of the Civil
Court judgement, NHAI would take necessary action for
release of the compensation.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
4.Heard Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.Shankarapandian,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent. Though the
sixth respondent has already been served with notice and the name of the
sixth respondent has also been printed in the cause list, there is no
representation either in person or through Counsel.
5.The issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as
to whether the objection raised by the sixth respondent is sustainable and
as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid the balance
compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner.
6.There is no dispute with regard to the acquisition proceedings
initiated by the second respondent and compensation amount that was
fixed. The second respondent was forced to retain the compensation of
Rs.1,80,900/- only on the ground that the sixth respondent was also
claiming a right over the property measuring an extent of 335 sq.metre
and therefore, the compensation insofar as this portion is concerned was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
deposited before the competent authority.
7.On carefully going through the materials available on record, it is
seen that the sixth respondent is claiming her right through one
Chermapandi. The grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Annamalai
Chettiar, who was originally owning the property faced same
resistant/challenge from the said Chermapandi and he filed a suit in
O.S.No.169 of 1988 before the Additional District Munsif Court,
Tuticorin seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction
with respect to the subject property. This suit was filed against
Chermapandi and the said suit was decreed through judgment and decree
dated 06.10.2003. This judgment and decree was subsequently
confirmed in A.S.No.89 of 2004 by the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin on
the appeal that was filed by Chermapandi.
8.In spite of the above decree passed by the competent Civil Court,
in the patta that was issued by the Tahsildar, apart from the name of the
father of the petitioner, it also contained five other names. Aggrieved by
the same, a Writ Petition was filed before this Court by the petitioner in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10588 of 2008 for a direction to the revenue authorities to
consider the representation and to remove the names of others from the
patta. This Writ Petition was disposed by order dated 21.11.2008. Since
the direction was not complied with, the petitioner initiated contempt
proceedings in Cont.P.(MD)No.371 of 2009. During pendency of the
Contempt Petition, the Tahsildar filed a counter affidavit and for proper
appreciation, paragraph 8 in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“8.It is submitted that as per the orders of the Assistant
Collector, Tuticorin in his proceedings No.RDIS 7895/10 (A1)
dated 01.11.2020 and as per the orders of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No.10588/2008 dated 21.11.2008, necessary
changes has been made in the property bearing Survey No.25/1B
3A1 of Kootudankadu Village of Tuticorin Taluk registered in
Patta No.879 and now the property bearing survey No,25/1B3A1
stands registered in New Patta No,2032 of Kootudankadu village,
Tuticorin Taluk only on the name of Thiru.Sevugan Annamalai
S/o. Lakshmanan Chettiar. All other names already found in
patta No.879 except the petitioner have already been deleted as
per the directions of the Assistant Collector, Tuticorin in
proceedings No.RDIS/7895/10 (A1) dated 01.11.2020. It is
submitted that the delay in giving effect to the order of the
Hon’ble High Court is purely due to administrative reasons and
the respondent herein never intend to disobey the order of this
Hon’ble High Court. The delay is neither willful nor deliberate.
The respondent herein tender unconditional apology for the delay
in complying with the direction of this Hon’ble Court.”
9.It is clear from the above that the names of the others were
deleted and patta was issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
2032. Thus, apart from the Civil Court decree, the revenue authorities
had also recognised the right and title of the petitioner in the subject
property.
10.It is further seen from the records that there was yet another
civil proceeding initiated by two other persons in O.S.No.53 of 2011
pertaining to the subject property. Apart from the petitioner, the said
Chermapandi was also added as a party to the proceedings. This
proceedings also ended against the Chermapandi and it was confirmed in
the appeal and the Second Appeal that was preferred by the Chermapandi
with a delay of 2489 days was also dismissed by this Court by order
dated 26.02.2016. With this order, the challenge to the right and title
over the subject property became final and there is absolutely no doubt
that it is the petitioner, who is the owner of the subject property.
11.In view of the above, the claim made by the sixth respondent
through Chermapandi is totally unsustainable and the petitioner is
entitled for the payment of entire compensation amount. The second
respondent was not the competent authority to decide this issue and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
therefore, the second respondent had retained the compensation with
regard to the disputed portion and had deposited it before the competent
authority.
12.In the light of the above finding, this Court can direct the
second respondent to pay the retained compensation amount to the
petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.
13.The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the revenue
authorities to delete the name of the sixth respondent from Patta No.
2032. As discussed supra, it is seen that the petitioner is the absolute
owner of the subject property and it is sufficiently clear from the Civil
Court decree that has been referred to and also the fact that the revenue
authorities have issued an individual patta in favour of the petitioner by
deleting the names of others on an earlier occasion. Therefore, the sixth
respondent, who is claiming her right through Chermapandi, cannot have
any individual right and therefore, her name must be removed from the
patta that has been issued in Patta No.2032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
14.In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings of the
second respondent Na.Ka.E3/49503/12 dated 29.09.2020 is hereby set
aside. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to pay the
balance compensation amount to the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If there is any
delay in payment of the balance compensation amount, it shall be paid
with interest @ 6%.
15.There shall also be a direction to the fourth respondent to
remove the name of the sixth respondent from Patta No.2032 and make
necessary changes in the revenue records and name of the petitioner
alone shall be shown as pattadhar in Patta No.2032. This process shall
be completed by the fourth respondent within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16.In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Index :Yes / No 16.10.2023
Internet :Yes
NCC : Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin.
2.The District Revenue Officer (D.R.O), Tuticorin.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O), Tuticorin.
4.The Tashildar, Tuticorin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
cmr
W.P.(MD)No.6340 of 2021
16.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
