BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/11/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD) No.80 of 2011 Writ Petition (MD) No.1300 of 2011 Writ Petition (MD) No.1807 of 2011 & Writ Petition (MD) No.1808 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).No.1300 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).No.1807 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).No.1808 of 2011 W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 : M.Mani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Social Welfare Scheme) District Collectorate Office, Dindigul. 3.The Project Director, National Highways, Four ways Project, Door No.44, Pon Nagar 3rd street, Trichy Town & District. 4.The District Revenue Officer cum Commissioner, National Highways, Chennama Nayakkanpatty, Dindiul Taluk & District. 5.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Special Tahsildar Office, National Highways No.45, Dindigul. 6.Saraswathi ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider
the petitioner’s representation dated 21.12.2010.
!For petitioner .. Mr.C.Thiruppathi ^For respondents .. Mr.M.Govindan, 1, 2, 4 & 5 Special Government Pleader For 3rd respondent .. Mr.Arulvadivel Sekar For 6th respondent .. Mr.G.Manikandaraja W.P.(MD).Nos.1300, 1807 & 1808 of 2011 : C.Gopinath .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1300/2011 M.Saraswathi .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1807/2011 M.Annapooranam .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1808/2011 Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Project Director, National Highways, Four ways Project, Door No.44, Pon Nagar 3rd street, Trichy Town, Trichy. 3.The District Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority, National Highways, Chennamanayakanpatty, Dindiul Taluk & District. 4.The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Special Tahsildar Office, (Land Acquisition) National Highways No.45, Dindigul. 5.M.Mani 6.K.Palaniyammal .. Respondents in all the writ petitions W.P.(MD).No.1300 of 2011 :
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the fourth respondent
from passing an award and disburse the compensation amount in favour of 5th and
6th respondents in respect of Survey No.937 and UDR Survey No.935/6, Ayyalur
Village, Vedachandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.
W.P.(MD).Nos.1807 & 1808 of 2011 :
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the order passed by the third respondent in proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.548/08/A4/N-45, dated 12.01.2011 and Na.Ka.No.548/08/A4/N-45, dated
12.12.2010 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to
refer the matter to Civil Court in view of Rule 3-H of National Highways Act for
proper adjudication in respect of Survey No.937 and UDR Survey No.935/6, Ayyalur
Village, Vedachandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.
!For petitioners .. Mr.G.Manikandaraja ^For respondents .. Mr.M.Govindan, 1, 3 & 4 Special Government Pleader For 2nd respondent .. Mr.Arulvadivel @ Sekar For 5th respondent .. Mr.C.Thiruppathi :COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in these four writ petitions are close relatives
viz., the petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.1807 & 1808 of 2011 are the sisters of the
petitioner in W.P.No.80 of 2011 and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1300 of 2011 is
the nephew of the petitioners in the other writ petitions.
2.The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 is filed by Mr.M.Mani,
S/o. late Muthunarayanasamy. He was running a hotel by name Hotel Doss at
Ayyaloor and the hotel was situated in Survey No.935/6. The claim of the said
petitioner is that he had constructed the building in the year 1975 and has been
in possession of the said building and also paying house tax, electricity
consumption charges, etc. His name also finds in the village revenue records.
The said building was acquired for the purpose of expanding the National Highway
No.45 in Trichy – Dindigul Section. After the completion of the acquisition, the
compensation was arrived at Rs.12,15,853/- as certified by the competent
authority. The compensation is yet to be disbursed to the said petitioner. The
petitioner was not satisfied with the rate of compensation and therefore, he
sent a representation, dated 21.12.2010, to the District Collector, Dindigul,
seeking for a higher compensation for the land acquired and therefore, he sought
for a reference of his petition for higher compensation and that W.P. when it
came up for admission on 05.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered in the said
petition. On notice from this Court, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,
Dindigul has given a reply dated 04.01.2011 stating that the petitioner had not
submitted the death certificate showing the death of his father late
Muthunaranayasamy and also the legal heir certificate for claiming the said
property and it was also pointed out that he had not produced the original house
tax receipts and E.P. consumption receipts for having enjoyed the facility in
the building situated in Survey No.935/6. Therefore, after the petitioner
submits those applications, his application for reference for higher
compensation will be considered.
3.In the meanwhile, the two sisters of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.80
of 2011, viz., M/s.Annapooranam, who is unmarried and said to be residing in the
same building, until it was taken over by the Highways filed W.P.(MD).No.1808 of
2011 and Saraswathi, filed W.P.(MD).No.1807 of 2011 claiming that the property
in question belongs to the joint family and in respect of acquisition made, the
matter should be referred to the Civil Court for determining the rights of the
legal heirs in terms of Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 3-H(4) of the Act states that
if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereto
or to any person to whom the same or any part thereto is payable, the competent
authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal District
Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land
is situated.
4.When these two writ petitions came up for admission on 17.02.2011,
this Court ordered notice of motion in both the writ petitions and the fourth
respondent in those two writ petitions viz., the Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), Dindigul was directed not to disburse the award amount to the
claimants, but it transpires, both the petitioners filed earlier writ petitions
before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.13365 of 2010 (M.Saraswathi) and
W.P.(MD).No.12189 of 2010 (M.Annapooranam). The prayer in the said writ
petitions was to forbear the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Dindigul from
passing an award and disbursing the compensation in favour of M.Mani, the
petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 and one K.Palaniammal, who is the
respondent therein. The said writ petitions were not gone into on merits and
the petitioners were directed to give representation to the respondents staking
their claim in the said property. The petitioners, pursuant to the direction
issued by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.13365 of 2010, dated 03.11.2010 and in
W.P.(MD).No.12189 of 2010, dated 27.09.2010, were directed to produce the
records showing their interest or ownership in the said property and it was
observed that the petitioners have only filed a written representation, but did
not show any documents to prove that they are the owners of Survey No.935/6.
Therefore, the petitioners were informed that the house tax receipts as well as
the patta No.1051 was standing in the name of Mr.M.Mani, the petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 and therefore, the request of the petitioners that they
should not only be given compensation but also the matter relating to the
dispute towards apportionment of the compensation amount should be referred to
the Civil Court, was rejected by the authorities, in the absence of any prima
facie claim made by the two petitioners. However, the counsel for the
petitioners strenuously contended that certain documents were standing in the
name of their mother and they have vital interest and the respondents are bound
to refer to the dispute in terms of Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act,
1956.
5.It must be noted that section 3-H(4) is only an enabling provision
for determining the apportionment of the amount by the authorities, who have
acquired the lands, failing which a reference can be made to the Civil Court
having jurisdiction. It is not as if the petitioners did not have any remedy to
claim their share in the compensation amount. They can very well establish
before a competent civil Court that they are entitled to have a share in respect
of Survey No.935/6, Ayyaloor Village. In fact, they have not succeeded in
convincing the authorities about their share in the property by producing prima
facie documents in their favour. Their claim was only based upon the legal heir
certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Vedachandur in which the legal heirs for
the late Muthunarayanasamy has been shown as one son and five daughters,
including M/s.Annapooranam and Saraswathi as well as the Palaniammal, who is the
daughter-in-law of late Muthunarayanasamy and wife of late M.Kalidas. Mere
legal heir certificate, without showing that the particular property in question
is coming within the joint family property, the petitioner cannot seek for any
direction in terms of Section 3-H(4) and prima facie the impugned orders dated
12.01.2011 challenged in W.P.(MD).No.1807 of 2010 and dated 12.12.2011
challenged in W.P.(MD).No.1808 of 2011 do not call for any interference. That
does not preclude the petitioners from filing appropriate suit before the
appropriate Civil Court claiming their right in the said property, including the
determination of their share in the said property. However, the learned counsel
for the petitioner Mr.G.Manikandaraja, expressing an apprehension that if
amounts disbursed to their brother M.Mani, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.80 of
2011, they would leave with nothing for a latter to claim and secondly, mere
getting a declaratory relief in the Court finally will be no result, requested
the Court that some compensation amount may be directed to be deposited.
6.While this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions,
seeking for a reference under Section 3-H(4), this Court is inclined to
safeguard the interest of the other legal heirs, if they prima facie establish
before the appropriate Civil Court about their right to get the amount and
therefore, intent to pass appropriate orders in the other writ petitions to that
effect. Hence, W.P.(MD).Nos.1807 and 1808 of 2011 will stand dismissed with the
direction and the dismissal will not disentitle the petitioners
7.The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1300 of 2011 is son of late
M.Chandran, who married Saroja and died on 22.12.1995 leaving him, as the sole
legal heir. The prayer made in W.P. is to forbear the fourth respondent Special
Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, from passing an award and disbursing the
compensation in favour M/s.M.Mani and K.Palaniammal, W/o.Late Kalidass in
respect of Survey No.935/6, situated at Ayyaloor village. That W.P. when came
up on 03.02.2011, notice of motion was ordered. Pending notice of motion the
Special Tahsildar was directed to not to disburse the amount to the claimants.
When only a final determination regarding the acquisition is made, the question
of payment of compensation will arise and thereafter, under Section 3-E, the
compensation of land can be taken for and the amount can be deposited in terms
of Section 3- H(4) of the National Highways Act. Therefore, the first portion
of the prayer that the Court should restrain the respondents from passing the
award or disbursing the compensation amount, cannot be entertained by this
Court. It transpires already the compensation amount has been determined by the
authorities as per the original file relating to the acquisition produced before
this Court. The only apprehension raised by the petitioner is similar to that of
the petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.1807 & 1808 of 2011. Therefore, the direction
given in those writ petitions will also apply to the petitioner and hence, with
the same direction, W.P.(MD).No.1300 of 2011 stands dismissed. It also
transpires that the same petitioners viz., C.Gopinath, M.Saraswathi and
M.Annapooram have filed a suit in O.S.No.266 of 2010 and in the suit, I.A.No.417
of 2010 restraining the petitioner M.Mani from constructing or altering
properties, was rejected. In any event, it is unnecessary to go into the civil
dispute.
8.In so far as the writ petition filed by the petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 is concerned, he was subsequently informed that he should
satisfy the authorities with reference to his right to claim the amount by
producing necessary documents and ultimately if he satisfies the authorities, he
can be given the compensation as ordered by the authority. The only impediment
was that the pendency of W.P.(MD).No.13365 of 2010 before this Court. As
already rightly stated by the petitioner, the said writ petition filed by
M.Saraswathi was disposed of as early as on 03.11.2010. Therefore, the
authority must have known about the said disposal, since the order copy made in
W.P. has already been marked to the respondents and despatched by this Court on
10.11.2010. Unfortunately the respondents had driven the land owner for giving
a petition before the District Collector at the grievance redressal day.
Thereafter, they gave an explanation contrary to the records. Hence, a direction
will issue to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated
21.12.2010, a copy of which marked at Page 7 of the typed set filed in
W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011. The authority should pass appropriate orders within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the
respondents are inclined to disburse the compensation amount in favour of
Mr.M.Mani, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011, the same shall be received
by the said writ petitioner. Out of the said amount received by him, he should
keep Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) separately and put the same in a
fixer deposit for a period of one year. In the event of his sisters or other
legal heirs, are able to succeed before the Civil Court, the said amount would
stand as a security in the civil suit if any filed by the said persons. If the
suit is not filed and no interim orders are obtained from the civil Court within
a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the
petitioner Mr.M.Mani is entitled to encash the said amount in his favour. The
writ petition is disposed of accordingly. On receipt of money, the said
petitioner shall file an affidavit into this court before the Registrar
(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, undertaking to keep the
above said amount in fixed deposit for a period of one year and the Registrar
(Judicial) shall call for compliance report from the said petitioner.
9.In the result, the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 is
disposed of with directions. W.P.(MD).Nos.1300, 1807 & 1808 of 2011 will stand
dismissed with the above direction. In view of the above, all the miscellaneous
applications are closed. No costs.
gcg
To:
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District.
2.The Special Deputy Collector
(Social Welfare Scheme)
District Collectorate Office,
Dindigul.
3.The Project Director,
National Highways, Four ways
Project, Door No.44, Pon
Nagar 3rd street, Trichy
Town & District.
4.The District Revenue Officer cum
Commissioner, National Highways,
Chennama Nayakkanpatty,
Dindiul Taluk & District.
5.The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition),
Special Tahsildar Office,
National Highways No.45,
Dindigul.
