Madras High Court
C.P.Munikrishnappa vs The Special Tahsildar (La) on 3 March, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
and
W.M.P.Nos.30756 of 2017 and 7821 of 2018
1. C.P.Munikrishnappa
2. C.P.Ramakrishnappa Petitioners in both WPs
vs
1. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
SIPCOT
Hosur Taluk
Hosur
Krishnagiri District
2. The District Collector
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri 635 001
3. Lokesh
4. Munivenkatappa
5. Jayappa RR 1 to 5 in both WPs
6. The Subordinate Judge
Sub Court
Hosur
Krishnagiri District R6 in W.P.No.28588 of 2017
Prayer in W.P.No. 28588 of 2017:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 6 herein
from disbursing the enhanced compensation amount awarded with
respect to the lands in survey No.454/1B, Moranapalli Village, Hosur
Taluk, Krishnagiri District (Award No.3/2007 and LAOP.Nos.92, 93 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
1/13
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
94 of 2007) to the respondents 3 to 5 till the title dispute over the said
lands between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 5 is finally
decided under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for
Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
(prayer amended vide order dated
29.01.2024 in W.M.P.No.34247 of
2023)
Prayer in W.P.No. 18709 of 2007:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to refer the
award No.3/2007 dated 22.03.2007 with respect to survey No.454/1B,
Moranapalli Village, Kumudhepalli Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District
under Sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for
Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
(prayer amended vide order dated
21.11.2023 in W.M.P.No.9978 of
2021)
For petitioners Mr.P.Mani
in both WPs
For RR1 and 2 Mr.A.Selvendran
in both WPs Spccial Government Pleader
For R3 to R5 Mr.A.Swaminathan
in both WPs
For R6 in Court
WP.18709/2007
COMMON ORDER
The issue involved in both the writ petitions being common, they
are taken up together, heard and decided by this common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
2. W.P.No.18709 of 2007 has been filed seeking a writ of
mandamus to direct the first respondent to refer the award No.3/2007
dated 22.03.2007 with respect to S.No.454/1B, Moranapalli Village,
Kumudhepalli Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District under Sections 8
and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act,
1997.
3. W.P.No.28588 of 2017 has been filed for the issue of a writ
of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from disbursing
enhanced compensation amount awarded with respect to the land in
S.Nos.454/1B in L.A.O.P. Nos.92,93 and 94 of 2007 to respondents 3 to
5, till the title dispute over the said land is finally decided under Section
9, ibid.
4. Heard Mr. P. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners in
both the writ petitions, Mr. A. Selvendran, learned Special Government
Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions and
Mr.A.Swaminathan, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 in both the
writ petitions.
5. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the
subject property which was inherited by them from their father. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
further case of the petitioners is that patta no.280 was issued in the
name of their father. All of a sudden, the patta was mutated in the
name of respondents 3 and 4, who, according to the petitioners, have
no right or title over the property. The petitioners approached the Sub
Collector, Hosur, and sought for a relief of deletion of the names of the
private respondents from the revenue records. The Sub Collector,
Hosur, through proceedings dated 18.05.2006, rejected the appeal on
the ground that there is a suit pending on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Hosur, seeking for the relief of partition.
6. The petitioners came to know that an award has been
passed to the effect that compensation with respect to S.No.454/1B was
directed to be paid in favour of the private respondents and the said
award has been put to challenge in W.P.No.18709 of 2007.
7. The private respondents, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Tahsildar, filed
L.A.O.Ps.92,93 and 94 of 2007 and the Reference Court had enhanced
the compensation. The petitioners therefore filed W.P.No.28588 of 2017
to forbear the official respondents from disbursing enhanced
compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings in favour of
respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.No.28588 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
8. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The first
respondent has taken a stand that insofar as the subject property in
S.No.454/1B, the patta stood in the name of the private respondents
and there was no civil proceedings pending insofar as this property is
concerned and therefore, the compensation was directed to be paid in
favour of the private respondents. A further stand has been taken by
first respondent to the effect that there is a serious dispute with respect
to the ownership of the land in S.No.454/1A which could not be decided
by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the compensation was
ordered to be deposited in the Civil Court and the parties were referred
to the Civil Court. Thus, for the lands that were acquired in
S.Nos.454/1A and 454/1B, compensation for S.No.454/1B belongs to
respondents 3 to 5 and hence, compensation was directed to be paid to
them. For the other property, the parties were directed to agitate their
rights before the Civil Court. Thereafter, the private respondents sought
for enhancement of compensation and filed LAOPs and the same were
also allowed and the compensation was enhanced. Aggrieved by the
same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed A.S.Nos. 471,472 and 473 of
2010 before this Court and an interim order was passed directing
deposit of 50% of the enhanced amount together with interest. The
same was deposited with reference to the property in S.No.454/1B and
respondents 3 to 5 have withdrawn this amount. Subsequently, the
three appeals came to be dismissed by judgment dated 06.07.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
9. The private respondents have also filed a counter affidavit.
They have taken a stand that they have nothing to do with the suit that
is pending in O.S.No.387 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court,
Hosur, since it does not pertain to the subject property in S.No.454/1B.
They have taken a stand that their grandfather had purchased the
property in the year 1944 and his name was also mutated in the
revenue records in patta no.280 for the property in S.No.454. It was
succeeded by the legal heirs and their names were mutated in the
revenue records by sub-dividing the property in S.No.454/1B.
According to the private respondents, the petitioners do not have any
right or title for the property and they attempted to cancel the patta
issued in the name of private respondents which was also rejected by
the Sub Collector, Hosur, through proceedings dated 18.05.2006.
Therefore, as true and lawful owners of the property, the private
respondents are entitled to receive the compensation and in fact, 50%
of the enhanced compensation amount that was deposited by the Land
Acquisition Officer was also withdrawn by the private respondents
during the pendency of the appeals before this Court. Accordingly, the
private respondents have sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.
10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
11. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.02.2025, this
Court passed the following order:
“Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
2. The petitioners, who are now claiming a right over
the property and are agitating the writ petition from the year
2007, did not care to implead themselves in the LAOP
proceedings or in the Appeal suits that were filed before this
Court. If the petitioners really had any right over the property, it
is quite unbelievable that the petitioners did not implead
themselves before the reference Court and before this Court in
the proceedings that took place in the year 2007 and 2010
respectively. After the entire proceedings have come to an end
and private respondents have already withdrawn 50% of the
compensation amount that was deposited and after the dismissal
of the appeal, the entire amount has already been deposited
before the Sub Court, Hosur in the year 2011, the petitioners
want this Court to go into the dispute between the petitioners
and the private respondents. There was absolutely no occasion
either in the LAOP Court or for this Court to get into this issue.
Hence, the petitioners must explain this Court as to why they did
not implead themselves and participate in the LAOP proceedings
and the AS proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for some
time to take instructions in this regard.
4. Post this writ petition under the caption “part heard
cases” on 24.02.2025.”
12. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners could not have
impleaded themselves as parties either in the LAOP proceedings or in
the appeals that were filed before this Court since they were agitated by
the private respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that the
appeal filed by the petitioners against patta that was granted in favour
of the private respondents came to be rejected only on the ground of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
pendency of a suit and therefore, the parties will have to agitate their
rights in the pending suit.
13. In the considered view of this Court, the first respondent,
while passing the award dated 22.03.2007, has individually considered
the claim made for S.No.454/1B. A scanned version of the relevant
finding of the first respondent is given below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
14. The first respondent, while passing this award, has taken
note of the fact that the private respondents were claiming their right
through title documents and also based on the revenue records
standing in their name. The petitioners claim that patta originally stood
in the name of their father and it was wrongly transferred in the name
of the private respondents. The suit that was filed and which is pending
before the District Munsif Court, Hosur, does not pertain to
S.No.454/1B. Therefore, if the Sub Collector had rejected the appeal
filed by the petitioners on the ground that the order passed by the
Tahsildar cannot be interfered with on the ground of pendency of a suit,
the petitioners ought to have challenged that order since the finding of
the Sub Collector to the effect that the suit includes the property in
S.No.454/1B also, is erroneous.
15. This Court, while testing the award dated 22.03.2007, must
only see if it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the
order. If, ultimately, this Court finds that such a finding has been
rendered by the first respondent based on the materials available and it
does not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction, the same
cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the decision
taken by the first respondent to pay compensation in favour of the
private respondents based on the fact that patta was standing in their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
name, cannot be faulted. At the risk of repetition, it is seen that even
the suit does not include the property in S.No.454/1B as one of the
schedule properties. Therefore, pendency of the civil suit has nothing to
do with the claim made by the private respondents which was purely
considered based on the revenue records standing in their name.
16. This Court must also take into consideration the fact that
the private respondents had taken steps to refer the matter to the
Reference Court seeking for enhancement of compensation and such
enhanced compensation was made and it was subsequently confirmed
in appeals before this Court and right through all these proceedings, it
is only the private respondents who were agitating the matter. That
apart, 50% of the enhanced compensation amount that was deposited
was also withdrawn by the private respondents during the pendency of
the appeals.
17. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the
writ petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought in these writ
petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
18. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
03.03.2025
cad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
cad
To
1. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
SIPCOT
Hosur Taluk
Hosur
Krishnagiri District
2. The District Collector
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri 635 001
3. The Subordinate Judge
Sub Court
Hosur
Krishnagiri District
Common order
W.P. Nos.28588 of 2017 and 18709 of 2007
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:37:25 pm )
