R.Shanmugam Vs. Spl Dist Revenue Officer - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1167759
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-30-2013
JudgeM.JAICHANDREN
AppellantR.Shanmugam
RespondentSpl Dist Revenue Officer
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated:30. 8-2013 coram the honourable mr.justice m.jaichandren writ petition no.30296 of 2011 and m.p.nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1. r.shanmugam 2. kamalam 3. lalitha 4. v.geethanjali 5. v.rajkumar 6. boopathi 7. minor harini .. petitioners. versus 1. the special district revenue officer (l.a.) national highways-47 & 67, no.3, savarimuthu chettiar street, red fields, coimbatore-641 045.2. gopalsamy .. respondents. prayer: petition filed seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in na.ka.no.282/2010 nh-47, dated 30.8.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st petitioner herein to refer the dispute to the competent civil court at coimbatore district. for petitioners : mr.k.govi ganesan for respondents : mr.r.ravichandran additional government pleader (r1) ms.p.t.asha (r2) for m/s.sarvabhauman associates order heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. it has been stated that the land, in s.f.no.276/3, in arasur village, sulur taluk, coimbatore district, measuring 1.39 acres, had been sold to sennimalai gounder, the grand father of the petitioners, for a valid sale consideration, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 29.6.1951. since then, sennimalai gounder had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. after his death the petitioners had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.3. it has been further stated that the legal heirs of krishna gounder had effected a partition, among themselves, by way of a partition deed, including the lands which had already been sold by their father. the land purchased by the grand father of the petitioners had also been included in the partition deed. while so, the first respondent had initiated land acquisition proceedings, under the national highways act, 1956, for acquiring the land in s.f.no.276/3a, for the purpose of laying a highway, between sangapalli and valayar highway. the first respondent had conducted an award enquiry, in which the petitioners had participated. necessary documents had also been produced by the petitioners in support of their claim. the second respondent had also participated in the said award enquiry, based on a patta granted to him, erroneously. the second respondent has no right or title in the land acquired by the first respondent. however, the first respondent, in his proceedings, dated 30.8.2011, apportioned the amount of compensation awarded to the various claimants, including the second respondent. therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this court, under article 226 of the constitution of india.4. in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the order, dated 30.8.2011, had been passed by the first respondent after taking into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the parties concerned, as there was no doubt with regard to the ownership or the extent of lands owned by the writ petitioners and the second respondent. the writ petitioners did not prove their ownership in respect of the entire extent of 1310 square metres of land, acquired for the purpose of laying the highway. the land, in s.f.no.276/3a, in arasur village, sulur taluk, coimbatore district, had been sub divided. however, the first respondent did not find any dispute in the ownership of the land in question and therefore, he did not have any doubt in apportioning the amount of compensation paid for the acquisition of the land in question. as such, the first respondent had not taken the role of the civil court in deciding the dispute relating to the ownership of the land in question, as alleged by the writ petitioners. therefore, the question of referring the matter to a civil court, under section 3h(4) of the national highways act, 1956, did not arise.5. in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of second respondent it has been stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, as the only remedy available to the petitioners is before the arbitrator to be appointed by the central government, as contemplated under section 3g(5) of the national highways act, 1956. it has been stated that the land which had been acquired by the first respondent had, originally, belonged to one krishna gounder the paternal grandfather of the second respondent. the said krishna gounder had purchased an extent of 1.39 acres in survey no.276/3, arasur village, sulur taluk, along with certain other properties, under a registered sale deed, dated 20.5.1918. thereafter, krishna gounder had sold an extent of 93 cents, out of the total extent of 1.39 acres, in s.f.no.276/3, to his brother sennimalai gounder, under a sale deed, dated 29.6.1951. krishna gounder had also sold some of his other properties along with th right in the well situated, in s.f.no.276/3. as such, krishna gounder had been left with an extent of 46 cents, in s.f.no.276/3, along with some of his other properties. krishna gounder had four sons, namely, rangaswamy gounder, saravana gounder, kumarasamy gounder and marappa gounder. on 8.6.1960, they had entered into a registered partition, by which an extent of 46 cents, in s.f.no.276/3, had been allotted to the share of saravana gounder, the grand father of the second respondent, along with certain other properties. from the year, 1918, the family members of second respondent had been in enjoyment of the land, in s.f.no.276/3. after the death of the grand father of the second respondent, on 9.5.2004, the property had devolved on his daughters chinnammal and kamalam and his son gopalaswamy, the second respondent herein. on 4.6.1990, chinnammal and kamalam had released their share of their property in favour of the second respondent. thus, the second respondent is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 46 cents and 1/4th share in the well therein. accordingly, the revenue records had been mutated in the name of the second respondent. while so, the first respondent had proposed to acquire the land in question, for the formation of a service road along the national highway nh-47. the publication had shown the second respondent, as well as the petitioners herein, as the persons interested in the lands, in s.f.no.276/3. the petitioners had put forward a plea that the second respondent had no right, title or interest in the land comprised in s.f.no.276/3 and that the petitioners were the sole owners of the said land. in view of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the second respondent, the first respondent herein had called them to appear for a personal enquiry and to produce the relevant documents in support of their claims. thereafter, the first respondent had passed an order, under section 3g of the national highways act, 1956, determining the amount payable as compensation. the first respondent had also disbursed the amounts due to the second respondent as his share. as such, there is no contentious issue to be decided by this court in the present writ petition.6. it has been further stated that the claim of the petitioners that the first respondent ought to have referred the matter to the principal civil court, under section 3h(4) of the national highways act, 1956, is without any merit. in fact, the remedy available to the petitioners is under section 3g(5) of the act. therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.7. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the first respondent had apportioned the amount awarded as compensation for the acquisition of the land, in s.no.276/3, arasur village, sulur taluk, which had been acquired for the purpose of laying the service roads in the national highway nh-47, as per the provisions of the national highways act, 1956. it is noted that a dispute had been raised before the first respondent, with regard to the title of the land in question, acquired under the provisions of the national highways act, 1956. rival claims had been made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the second respondent. while so, the first respondent had taken into consideration the documents produced before him and had apportioned the award amount to the various persons, without following the procedures contemplated, under section 3h(4) of the national highways act, 1956.8. from a reading of clause (4) of section 3h of the said act it is clear that, if a dispute arises, with regard to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the jurisdictional principal civil court, within whose jurisdiction the land in question is situated. instead of referring the dispute to the principal civil court concerned, as provided under the said clause, the first respondent, who is the competent authority, had apportioned the award amount amongst the rival claimants. it is also noted that clause 5 of section 3g of the national highways act, 1956, would apply only when the amount determined by the competent authority, under sub sections (1) and (2) of the said section, is not acceptable to the parties concerned. only in such cases the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the central government. however, in the present case, the first respondent had determined the amount of compensation to be paid for the acquisition of the land in question. however, rival claims had been made by the petitioners, as well as the second respondent, with regard to the apportionment of the amount awarded as compensation. in such a case, the first respondent ought to have referred the dispute to the principal civil court having the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, as per clause 4 of section 3h of the national highways act, 1956.9. in such view of the matter, the court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2011, in apportioning the award amounts, amongst the parties concerned, is liable to be set aside. accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent is set aside. consequently, the first respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the principal civil court having competent jurisdiction, to settle the dispute, as per clause 4 of section 3h of the national highways act, 1956, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the writ petition is ordered accordingly. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. index:yes/no -8-2013 internet:yes/no csh 1. the special district revenue officer (l.a.) national highways-47 & 67, no.3, savarimuthu chettiar street, red fields, coimbatore-641 045. m.jaichandren,j.csh writ petition no.30296 of 2011 30-8-2013
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

30. 8-2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.30296 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1. R.Shanmugam 2. Kamalam 3. Lalitha 4. V.Geethanjali 5. V.Rajkumar 6. Boopathi 7. Minor Harini .. Petitioners. Versus 1. The Special District Revenue Officer (L.A.) National Highways-47 & 67, No.3, Savarimuthu Chettiar Street, Red Fields, Coimbatore-641 045.

2. Gopalsamy .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.282/2010 NH-47, dated 30.8.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st petitioner herein to refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court at Coimbatore District. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader (R1) Ms.P.T.Asha (R2) for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. It has been stated that the land, in S.F.No.276/3, in Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring 1.39 acres, had been sold to Sennimalai Gounder, the grand father of the petitioners, for a valid sale consideration, by way of a registered Sale Deed, dated 29.6.1951. Since then, Sennimalai Gounder had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. After his death the petitioners had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands in question.

3. It has been further stated that the legal heirs of Krishna Gounder had effected a partition, among themselves, by way of a Partition Deed, including the lands which had already been sold by their father. The land purchased by the grand father of the petitioners had also been included in the Partition Deed. While so, the first respondent had initiated land acquisition proceedings, under the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquiring the land in S.F.No.276/3A, for the purpose of laying a highway, between Sangapalli and Valayar highway. The first respondent had conducted an award enquiry, in which the petitioners had participated. Necessary documents had also been produced by the petitioners in support of their claim. The second respondent had also participated in the said award enquiry, based on a patta granted to him, erroneously. The second respondent has no right or title in the land acquired by the first respondent. However, the first respondent, in his proceedings, dated 30.8.2011, apportioned the amount of compensation awarded to the various claimants, including the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the order, dated 30.8.2011, had been passed by the first respondent after taking into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the parties concerned, as there was no doubt with regard to the ownership or the extent of lands owned by the writ petitioners and the second respondent. The writ petitioners did not prove their ownership in respect of the entire extent of 1310 square metres of land, acquired for the purpose of laying the highway. The land, in S.F.No.276/3A, in Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, had been sub divided. However, the first respondent did not find any dispute in the ownership of the land in question and therefore, he did not have any doubt in apportioning the amount of compensation paid for the acquisition of the land in question. As such, the first respondent had not taken the role of the civil court in deciding the dispute relating to the ownership of the land in question, as alleged by the writ petitioners. Therefore, the question of referring the matter to a civil court, under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, did not arise.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of second respondent it has been stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, as the only remedy available to the petitioners is before the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government, as contemplated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It has been stated that the land which had been acquired by the first respondent had, originally, belonged to one Krishna Gounder the paternal grandfather of the second respondent. The said Krishna Gounder had purchased an extent of 1.39 acres in Survey No.276/3, Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, along with certain other properties, under a registered Sale Deed, dated 20.5.1918. Thereafter, Krishna Gounder had sold an extent of 93 cents, out of the total extent of 1.39 acres, in S.F.No.276/3, to his brother Sennimalai Gounder, under a Sale Deed, dated 29.6.1951. Krishna Gounder had also sold some of his other properties along with th right in the well situated, in S.F.No.276/3. As such, Krishna Gounder had been left with an extent of 46 cents, in S.F.No.276/3, along with some of his other properties. Krishna Gounder had four sons, namely, Rangaswamy Gounder, Saravana Gounder, Kumarasamy Gounder and Marappa Gounder. On 8.6.1960, they had entered into a registered partition, by which an extent of 46 cents, in S.F.No.276/3, had been allotted to the share of Saravana Gounder, the grand father of the second respondent, along with certain other properties. From the year, 1918, the family members of second respondent had been in enjoyment of the land, in S.F.No.276/3. After the death of the grand father of the second respondent, on 9.5.2004, the property had devolved on his daughters Chinnammal and Kamalam and his son Gopalaswamy, the second respondent herein. On 4.6.1990, Chinnammal and Kamalam had released their share of their property in favour of the second respondent. Thus, the second respondent is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 46 cents and 1/4th share in the well therein. Accordingly, the revenue records had been mutated in the name of the second respondent. While so, the first respondent had proposed to acquire the land in question, for the formation of a service road along the National Highway NH-47. The publication had shown the second respondent, as well as the petitioners herein, as the persons interested in the lands, in S.F.No.276/3. The petitioners had put forward a plea that the second respondent had no right, title or interest in the land comprised in S.F.No.276/3 and that the petitioners were the sole owners of the said land. In view of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the second respondent, the first respondent herein had called them to appear for a personal enquiry and to produce the relevant documents in support of their claims. Thereafter, the first respondent had passed an order, under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, determining the amount payable as compensation. The first respondent had also disbursed the amounts due to the second respondent as his share. As such, there is no contentious issue to be decided by this court in the present writ petition.

6. It has been further stated that the claim of the petitioners that the first respondent ought to have referred the matter to the Principal Civil Court, under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is without any merit. In fact, the remedy available to the petitioners is under Section 3G(5) of the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the first respondent had apportioned the amount awarded as compensation for the acquisition of the land, in S.No.276/3, Arasur Village, Sulur Taluk, which had been acquired for the purpose of laying the service roads in the national highway NH-47, as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is noted that a dispute had been raised before the first respondent, with regard to the title of the land in question, acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Rival claims had been made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the second respondent. While so, the first respondent had taken into consideration the documents produced before him and had apportioned the award amount to the various persons, without following the procedures contemplated, under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

8. From a reading of Clause (4) of Section 3H of the said Act it is clear that, if a dispute arises, with regard to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the jurisdictional Principal Civil Court, within whose jurisdiction the land in question is situated. Instead of referring the dispute to the Principal Civil Court concerned, as provided under the said clause, the first respondent, who is the competent authority, had apportioned the award amount amongst the rival claimants. It is also noted that Clause 5 of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, would apply only when the amount determined by the competent authority, under sub Sections (1) and (2) of the said Section, is not acceptable to the parties concerned. Only in such cases the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. However, in the present case, the first respondent had determined the amount of compensation to be paid for the acquisition of the land in question. However, rival claims had been made by the petitioners, as well as the second respondent, with regard to the apportionment of the amount awarded as compensation. In such a case, the first respondent ought to have referred the dispute to the Principal Civil Court having the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, as per Clause 4 of Section 3H of the national Highways Act, 1956.

9. In such view of the matter, the court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2011, in apportioning the award amounts, amongst the parties concerned, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent is set aside. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court having competent jurisdiction, to settle the dispute, as per Clause 4 of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index:Yes/No -8-2013 Internet:Yes/No csh 1. The Special District Revenue Officer (L.A.) National Highways-47 & 67, No.3, Savarimuthu Chettiar Street, Red Fields, Coimbatore-641 045. M.JAICHANDREN,J.

csh Writ Petition No.30296 of 2011 30-8-2013